HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_08.27.2020Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
August 27, 2020 at 6:00 P M
at Teleconference
T he C ity of G eorgetown is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you
require as s is tance in partic ipating at a public meeting due to a disability, as defined under the ADA, reas onable
as s is tance, adaptations , or ac commodations will be provided upon request. P leas e c ontact the C ity S ec retary's
O ffic e, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc heduled meeting date, at (512) 930-3652 or C ity Hall at 808 Martin
Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626 for additional information; T T Y users route through R elay
Texas at 711.
The re gul ar me e ti ng will conve ne at 6:00pm on A ugust 27, 2020 via
te le confe re nc e. To participate , ple ase c opy and paste the we blink into your
browse r:
Weblink: https://bit.ly/3g Iox F F
Webinar I D: 962 6490 3017
P assword: 654270
To participate by phone:
Call in numbe r (toll fre e) 833-548-0276
P assword: 654270
Citizen comme nts are acc epted in thr ee differ ent for mats:
1. Submit written comme nts to pl anning@geor getown.or g by 5:00p.m. on the
date of the mee ting and the Re cor ding S ec re tary will r e ad your c omments
into the r ec ording during the item that is being discussed.
2. L og onto the me e ting at the link above and "r aise your hand" dur ing the
item
3. Use your home /mobile phone to call the toll-fre e numbe r
To join a Zoom mee ting, c li ck on the l ink pr ovi de d and join as an attende e.
You wil l be asked to e nte r your name and e mail addr ess (this is so we c an
ide ntify you whe n you are c all e d upon). To spe ak on an ite m, c li ck on the
"R aise your H and" option at the bottom of the Zoom me eti ng webpage onc e
that i tem has opened. Whe n you ar e cal le d upon by the R e cor di ng Se cr etar y,
your de vi ce wil l be re mote ly un-mute d by the Administr ator and you may
spe ak for thre e minute s. P l e ase state your name c le arl y, and whe n your time
is over, your de vice will be muted again.
Use of pr ofanity, thr eate ning language, slande rous r emarks or thr eats of
Page 1 of 158
harm are not allowed and wil l re sult i n you be ing imme di atel y r emove d fr om
the mee ting.
Regular Session
(T his R egular S es s ion may, at any time, be rec es s ed to c onvene an Exec utive S es s ion for any purpose
authorized by the O pen Meetings Act, Texas G overnment C ode 551.)
A Discussion on how the H istoric and Architectural Review Commission virtual conference will be conducted,
to include options for public comments and how the public may address the Commission -- Sofia Nelson,
C N U -A, P lanning Director
B T he His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion, appointed by the Mayor and the C ity C ouncil, is
respons ible for hearing and taking final ac tion on applic ations , by is s uing C ertific ates of Appropriatenes s
based upon the C ity C ounc il adopted Downtown Design G uidelines and Unified Development C ode.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
· S taff P resentation
· Applicant P res entation (Limited to ten minutes unles s stated otherwise by the C ommission.)
· Q uestions from C ommission to S taff and Applicant
· C omments from C itizens*
· Applicant R es ponse
· C ommission Deliberative P rocess
· C ommission Action
* O nce s taff and the ap p licant have ad d res s ed q ues tio ns from the C o mmis s io ners , the C hair o f the
C ommission will open the pub lic hearing. T he c hair will ask if anyo ne would like to s peak. To speak, clic k
on the "R ais e Your Hand " optio n at the b o tto m of the Zoom meeting web p age. Yo ur d evic e will be
remotely un-muted and you may s p eak for three minutes . P leas e s tate yo ur name and address clearly. A
speaker may allot their time to another s p eaker for a maximum of 6 minutes . If a memb er of the
public wis hes to allot their time to ano ther s peaker, they may d o s o when their name is called by the C hair.
P lease remember that all comments and questions mus t b e addressed to the C o mmis s io n, and p leas e be
patient while we o rganize the s p eakers d uring the pub lic hearing portion. W hen yo ur time is over, your
device will be muted again.
•After everyo ne who has asked to speak has spoken, the C hair will clos e the pub lic hearing and p ro vide a
few minutes of rebuttal time to the applic ant if they s o c hoose.
L egislativ e Regular Agenda
C C ons ideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the August 13, 2020 regular meeting of the
Historic and Arc hitectural R eview C ommission. - Mirna G arc ia, Management Analyst
D P ublic Hearing and P ossible Ac tion on a request for a C ertificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for:
an addition to a street facing façade;
Page 2 of 158
a 5’-4” s etbac k enc roachment into the required 25’ s treet-facing garage setback to allow a
residential s tructure 19’-8” from the side s treet (south) property line;
a 4’-6” s etbac k enc roachment into the required 10’ rear (wes t) s etbac k, to allow a res idential
struc ture 5’-6” from the rear (west) property line;
a 2’-9” s etbac k enc roachment into the required 6’ side (north) s etbac k for Lot 5 to allow a
residential s tructure 3’-3” from the lot line;
an 8’-0” building height modification to the required 15’ maximum building height at the rear (west)
setback, to allow a building height of 23’-0” at the rear (west) setback; and
an 8’-0” building height modification to the required 15’ maximum building height at the side (north)
setback for Lot 5, to allow a building height of 23’-0” at the s ide (north) setback
at the property loc ated at 1610 S . C hurc h S treet, bearing the legal des cription of Lot 5 and the s outh part
of Lot 4 of Block 4 of the Logan Addition. – Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
E P ublic Hearing and Possible Action on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for an
addition to a street facing façade, a 10' setback encroac hment into the required 25' street-fac ing garage
setback to allow a res idential struc ture 15' from the s ide street (north) property line, and a 7’-6” building
height modification to the required 15’ maximum building height at the side s treet (north) setback, to allow
a building height of 22’-6” at the s ide street (north) s etbac k at the property located at 1403 Ash S treet,
bearing the legal desc ription of 0.497 acres out of the Northwes t P art of Block 8 of the Hughes Addition.
(2020-39-C O A) – Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
F P ublic Hearing and Possible Action on a reques t for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for
new s ignage that is incons is tent with an approved Master S ign P lan or applic able guidelines at the
property located at 806 R oc k S treet, bearing the legal des cription of 0.08 acres out of the east part of Lot
1, Bloc k 49 of the C ity of G eorgetown. – Britin Bos tic k, Downtown & Historic P lanner
G Updates , C ommis s ioner questions, and c omments . - S ofia Nels on, P lanning Director
Adjournment
Ce rtificate of Posting
I, R obyn Densmore, C ity S ecretary for the C ity of G eorgetown, Texas, do hereby c ertify that this Notic e of
Meeting was posted at C ity Hall, 808 Martin Luther King Jr. S treet, G eorgetown, T X 78626, a plac e readily
acc es s ible to the general public as required by law, on the _____ day of _________________, 2020, at
__________, and remained s o posted for at leas t 72 c ontinuous hours prec eding the s cheduled time of said
meeting.
__________________________________
R obyn Dens more, C ity S ec retary
Page 3 of 158
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 27, 2020
S UB J E C T:
C onsideration and pos s ible ac tion to approve the minutes from the Augus t 13, 2020 regular meeting of the
His toric and Architec tural R eview C ommis s ion. - Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
IT E M S UMMARY:
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
.
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Mirna G arcia, Management Analys t
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
minutes Backup Material
Page 4 of 158
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 4
Meeting: August 13, 2020
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
August 13, 2020 at 6:00 p.m.
Teleconference Meeting: https://bit.ly/2DreA0R
The regular meeting convened at 6:00PM on August 13, 2020 via teleconference at:
https://bit.ly/2DreA0R
To participate by phone: Call in number: 833-548-0282 Webinar ID#: 911-9725-5659 Password:
607172
Public Comment was allowed via the conference call number or the “ask a question” function on
the video conference option; no in-person input was allowed.
Members present: Amanda Parr, Chair; Catherine Morales; Faustine Curry; Pam Mitchell; Terri
Asendorf-Hyde; ; Robert McCabe; Steve Johnston; Karalei Nunn; Art Browner
Staff present: Britin Bostick, Historic Planner; Mirna Garcia, Management Analyst; Nat Waggoner,
Long Range Planning Manager
Call to order by Commissioner Parr at 6:00 pm.
Regular Session
(This Regular Session may, at any time, be recessed to convene an Executive Session for any
purpose authorized by the Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code 551.)
A. (Instructions for joining meeting attached). Discussion on how the Historic and Architectural
Review Commission virtual conference will be conducted, to include options for public
comments and how the public may address the Commission. – Sofia Nelson, CNU-A, Planning
Director
B. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City
Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing
Certificates of Appropriateness based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design
Guidelines and Unified Development Code.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
- Staff Presentation
- Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the Commission.)
- Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
- Comments from Citizens*
- Applicant Response
- Commission Deliberative Process
- Commission Action
*Once staff and the applicant have addressed questions from the Commissioners, the
Chair of the Commission will open the public hearing. If a member of the public would
Page 5 of 158
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 4
Meeting: August 13, 2020
like to provide comments on the agenda item under discussion, the chair will ask if
anyone would like to speak. To speak, please identify yourself by either
entering your name, address and item number on the Q/A chat on your
screen. When your name is called you will have up to 3 minutes. A speaker may allot
their time to another speaker for a maximum of 6 minutes. If a member of the
public wished to allot their time to another speaker, they may do so when their name is
called by the Chair. Please remember that all comments and questions must be
addressed to the Commission, and please be patient while we organize the speakers
during the public hearing portion. After everyone who has asked to speak has
spoken, the Chair will close the public hearing and provide a few minutes of rebuttal
time to the applicant if they so choose.
On a subject not posted on the agenda: Persons may add an item to a future Board
agenda by filing a written request with the Staff Liaison no later than one week prior to
the Board meeting. The request must include the speaker's name and the specific topic to
be addressed with sufficient information to inform the board and the public. For Board
Liaison contact information, please logon
to http://government.georgetown.org/category/boards-commissions/.
Legislative Regular Agenda
C. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the July 23, 2020 regular
meeting of the Historic and Architectural Review Commission. - Mirna Garcia, Management
Analyst
Motion to approve Item C by Commissioner Johnston. Second by Commissioner Morales.
Approved (7-0).
D. Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for: an
addition to a street facing façade; a 5’-4” setback encroachment into the required 25’ street-
facing garage setback to allow a residential structure 19’-8” from the side street (south) property
line; a 4’-6” setback encroachment into the required 10’ rear (west) setback, to allow a residential
structure 5’-6” from the rear (west) property line; a 2’-9” setback encroachment into the required
6’ side (north) setback for Lot 5 to allow a residential structure 3’-3” from the lot line; and an 8’-
0” building height modification to the required 15’ maximum building height at the rear (west)
set back, to allow a building height of 23’-0” at the rear (west) setback at the property located at
1610 S. Church Street, bearing the legal description of Lot 5 and the south part of Lot 4 of Block
4 of the Logan Addition -- Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Staff report by Bostick. In addition to the request items listed above, the proposed project
would also require an 8’-0” building height modification to the required 15’ maximum building
height at the side (north) setback, to allow a building height of 23’-0” at the side (north) setback.
This additional building height modification was not included in the public notice, and is
therefore not part of the public hearing or discussion for the regular HARC meeting for August
13, but will be noticed and placed on the agenda for the regular HARC meeting on August 27.
Page 6 of 158
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 4
Meeting: August 13, 2020
The applicant is requesting HARC approval for the addition of a carport and rear storage with
second floor living area to the existing medium priority historic main structure, to be connected
by a breezeway. The proposed addition is to replace the existing non-historic 361 sq. ft. carport
and 237.5 sq. ft. storage with a new structure that includes a 576 sq. ft. carport with 384 sq. ft. of
storage at the rear, and a second floor 720 sq. ft. game room above the rear storage area that
overlaps the carport portion of the first floor by 6’. The proposed location on the site and height
at the rear (west) setback require setback and building height modifications. The house appears
on the 1925 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map with a small accessory structure that was
likely the garage or shed that can be seen in the 2017 HRS photos. The drawing of the house
indicates front and rear porches. The 1964 and 1974 aerial photos shows the hip roof style with
interior chimneys, as well as the accessory structure, and 1981 photos taken by the Texas
Historical Commission show what appears to be the original design of the house, with large
windows, beveled horizontal siding and wood shingle siding around the front porch. The
second-floor addition and dormers were added between 1984 and 2007, although the exact date
is not currently known. Presently, the house retains many of the original features, and despite
some alterations to the appearance, is of a style and character that contribute to the character of
the Old Town Overlay District.
The addition is proposed to be in the same location as the original and current
garage/shed/carport, which requires setback modifications for the street facing garage, side
street and rear setbacks due to the current setback requirements for the Residential Single-
Family zoning district. The third setback modification required for the proposed project, the 2’-
9” setback encroachment into the required 6’ side (north) setback for Lot 5 to allow a residential
structure 3’-3” from the lot line, is due to the location of a lot line within the property boundary.
When the Shermans had the house built, they owned Lot 5 and part of Lot 4 of the Logan
Addition, which gave them a larger yard or property than they would have with just a single
lot. At the time buildings were constructed across lot lines, and there were no setbacks since
zoning had not been established as a city power. Today, the City of Georgetown Unified
Development Code applies setbacks to lot lines, even when those lot lines are within current
property ownership boundaries, which is why this setback modification is part of the project
request. This interior setback modification also reduces the setback modification needed for the
street-facing carport. The Unified Development Code also requires a building height of 15’ at
the required setbacks within the Old Town Overlay District, and the proposed height of the
second floor of the addition – which is measured as the average of the ridge and eave height – at
the rear property line setback is 23’ and requires an 8’ building height modification.
Commissioner Morales asked how all the items are related. Bostick explained that all items have
to be approved in order for the applicant to obtain all permits necessary.
Commissioner Nunn commented that it would be helpful to provide more detail in the
drawings. This would provide a better visual for the Commission to understand the proposed
project and requests, such as providing detail on the materials that will be used.
The applicants, Laura Cook and Steve Meyer, explained that he has not decided on the actual
materials that will be used yet. However, the look of the house will be kept.
Page 7 of 158
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 4 of 4
Meeting: August 13, 2020
Chair Parr opened and closed the Public Hearing as no one signed up to speak.
Motion to postpone Item D (2020-34-COA) to the next HARC meeting in order to review all
items at the same time, by Commissioner Morales. Second by Commissioner Nunn.
Approved (7-0).
E. Presentation and discussion of potential items for Commission Training – Britin Bostick,
Downtown and Historic Planner
Waggoner provided a short presentation with a list of topics for the Commission to discuss and
provide feedback to staff. Staff sought feedback on whether there are topics the Commission
would like to add, modify, and if there are any topics staff need to prioritize.
In addition to training opportunities, staff also sought feedback from the Commission on the
materials used by the Commission in their deliberation (staff reports, exhibits, and
presentations). Staff requested feedback on what application materials best help Commissioners
with their decision-making, what needs improvement, and any changes staff can make to the
application materials.
F. Updates, Commission questions, and comments. – Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Morales. Second by Commissioner Nunn.
Meeting adjourned at 7:47pm
________________________________ _________________________________
Approved, Amanda Parr, Chair Attest, Terri Asendorf-Hyde, Secretary
Page 8 of 158
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 27, 2020
S UB J E C T:
P ublic Hearing and P os s ible Action on a reques t for a C ertific ate of Appropriatenes s (C O A) for:
an addition to a s treet fac ing faç ade;
a 5’-4” setback encroac hment into the required 25’ street-fac ing garage s etbac k to allow a residential
s tructure 19’-8” from the side s treet (south) property line;
a 4’-6” setback encroac hment into the required 10’ rear (west) setback, to allow a residential
s tructure 5’-6” from the rear (wes t) property line;
a 2’-9” setback encroac hment into the required 6’ s ide (north) setback for Lot 5 to allow a residential
s tructure 3’-3” from the lot line;
an 8’-0” building height modific ation to the required 15’ maximum building height at the rear (wes t)
s etbac k, to allow a building height of 23’-0” at the rear (wes t) s etbac k; and
an 8’-0” building height modific ation to the required 15’ maximum building height at the s ide (north)
s etbac k for Lot 5, to allow a building height of 23’-0” at the side (north) s etbac k
at the property located at 1610 S . C hurch S treet, bearing the legal desc ription of Lot 5 and the south part
of Lot 4 of Bloc k 4 of the Logan Addition. – Britin Bos tic k, Downtown & Historic P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he applic ant is reques ting HAR C ap p ro val fo r the additio n o f a c arp o rt and rear sto rage with sec ond
floor living area to the exis ting medium priority his toric main s tructure, to be connec ted by a long
breezeway. T he proposed additio n is to replac e the exis ting no n-his toric 361 s q . ft. c arport and 237.5 s q.
ft. sto rage with a new struc ture that includ es a 576 sq. ft. carport with 384 s q . ft. of s torage at the rear, and
a s econd floor 720 s q. ft. game room ab o ve the rear sto rage area that o verlaps the c arport portio n o f the
firs t floor b y 6’. T he proposed lo catio n on the s ite and height at the rear s etbac k req uire s etbac k and
building height modific ations .
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None. T he applicant has paid the required application fees .
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Surveys Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Exhibit
Page 9 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-34-COA –1610 S. Church Street Page 1 of 12
Meeting Date: August 27, 2020
File Number: 2020-34-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for:
• an addition to a street facing façade;
• a 5’-4” setback encroachment into the required 25’ street-facing garage setback to allow a
residential structure 19’-8” from the side street (south) property line;
• a 4’-6” setback encroachment into the required 10’ rear (west) setback, to allow a residential
structure 5’-6” from the rear (west) property line;
• a 2’-9” setback encroachment into the required 6’ side (north) setback for Lot 5 to allow a
residential structure 3’-3” from the lot line;
• an 8’-0” building height modification to the required 15’ maximum building height at the rear
(west) setback, to allow a building height of 23’-0” at the rear (west) setback; and
• an 8’-0” building height modification to the required 15’ maximum building height at the side
(north) setback for Lot 5, to allow a building height of 23’-0” at the side (north) setback
at the property located at 1610 S. Church Street, bearing the legal description of Lot 5 and the south part
of Lot 4 of Block 4 of the Logan Addition.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 1610 S. Church Street Garage
Applicant: John Lawton (Green Earth Builders)
Property Owner: Laura Cook, Trustee of SGM Trust & Steven G. Mayer, Trustee of LAC Trust
Property Address: 1610 S. Church Street
Legal Description: Lot 5 and the south part of Lot 4 of Block 4 of the Logan Addition
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: Public Hearing for 2020-34-COA held on Thursday, August 13, 2020 at 6:00pm.
HARC requested that the applicant/property owner submit notated drawings
indicating the proposed exterior materials and/or photo examples of proposed
exterior materials.
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1913
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Medium
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
Page 10 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-34-COA –1610 S. Church Street Page 2 of 12
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
• Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade for a medium priority
structure
• A 2’-9” setback encroachment with an 8’-0” building height modification at the Lot 4/Lot 5
setback to allow a two-story addition 3’-3” from the lot line to the interior of the property;
• a 5’-4” setback encroachment into the required 25’ street-facing garage setback to allow a
carport 19’-8” from the side street (south) property line; and
• a 4’-6” setback encroachment into the required 10’ rear (west) setback, to allow a carport/storage
living structure 5’-6” from the rear (west) property line (same encroachment as the existing
carport/storage) with an 8’-0” building height modification to the required 15’ maximum
building height at the rear (west) setback, to allow a building height of 23’-0” at the rear (west)
setback.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Proposed Project
The applicant is requesting HARC approval for the addition of a carport and rear storage with second
floor living area to the existing medium priority historic main structure, to be connected by a breezeway.
The proposed addition is to replace the existing non-historic 361 sq. ft. carport and 237.5 sq. ft. storage
with a new structure that includes a 576 sq. ft. carport with 384 sq. ft. of storage at the rear, and a second
floor 720 sq. ft. game room above the rear storage area that overlaps the carport portion of the first floor
by 6’. The proposed location on the site and height at the rear (west) setback require setback and building
height modifications.
Historic Information
The house at 1610 S. Church Street is known as the John & Susie Sherman House, and their son, Elmo,
provided information during the 1984 Historic Resource Survey that he was born in the house in 1913
and that the family moved away from Georgetown in 1920. He further stated that the house cost $1,300
to build and that there was a sleeping porch at the back. In the 1984 HRS the house is noted to be
constructed in 1913; however, the 2016 HRS provides a construction date of 1920.
According to public records, J. C. Sherman, Jr. purchased lots 3-5 of Block 4 of the Logan Addition on
July 27th, 1912 from a group of people including A. H. Glasscock. Albert Horton Glasscock was the son
of Georgetown founder George Washington Glasscock. Sherman paid $225 for the three lots, then he and
his wife Susie sold Lot 3 and the north half of Lot 4 to C. S. Griffith, owner of the Griffith Lumber
Company on February 11, 1913 for $250. A Mechanic’s Lien release dated November 18, 1914 shows that
the Griffith Lumber Company did construct the house in 1913, and the promissory notes (loan) dated
February 11, 1913 were for a total of $1,350. The Shermans sold their house to B. Mayfield on May 19th,
1920 for $3,750 and the payment of the property taxes.
Page 11 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-34-COA –1610 S. Church Street Page 3 of 12
The house appears on the 1925 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map with a small accessory structure
that was likely the garage or shed that can be seen in the 2017 HRS photos. The drawing of the house
indicates front and rear porches. The 1964 and 1974 aerial photos shows the hip roof style with interior
chimneys, as well as the accessory structure, and 1981 photos taken by the Texas Historical Commission
show what appears to be the original design of the house, with large windows, beveled horizontal siding
and wood shingle siding around the front porch. The second-floor addition and dormers were added
between 1984 and 2007, although the exact date is not currently known. Presently, the house retains many
of the original features, and despite some alterations to the appearance, is of a style and character that
contribute to the character of the Old Town Overlay District.
Project Analysis
The addition is proposed to be in the same location as the original and current garage/shed/carport,
which requires setback modifications for the street facing garage, and rear setbacks due to the current
setback requirements for the Residential Single-Family zoning district. The third setback modification
required for the proposed project, the 2’-9” setback encroachment into the required 6’ side (north) setback
for Lot 5 to allow a residential structure 3’-3” from the lot line, is due to the location of a lot line within
the property boundary. When the Shermans had the house built, they owned Lot 5 and part of Lot 4 of
the Logan Addition, which gave them a larger yard or property than they would have with just a single
lot. At the time buildings were constructed across lot lines, and there were no setbacks since zoning had
not been established as a city power. Today, the City of Georgetown Unified Development Code applies
setbacks to platted lot lines, even when those lot lines are within current property ownership boundaries,
which is why this setback modification is part of the project request. This interior setback modification
also reduces the setback modification needed for the street-facing carport.
The Unified Development Code also requires a building height of 15’ at the required setbacks within the
Old Town Overlay District, and the proposed height of the second floor of the addition – which is
measured as the average of the ridge and eave height – at the rear property line and interior lot line
setback is 23’ and requires an 8’ building height modification at the side (north) and rear (west) setbacks.
The Unified Development Code limits the size of accessory structures, or structures detached and
separate from the main structure, to 25% of the square footage of the main structure, although garages
may be up to 600 square feet. The applicant is proposing to connect the addition to the main house via a
breezeway so that it is not an accessory structure and the additional square footage for the storage and
living areas is allowed. In this case the distance between the deck at the rear of the house and the carport
is 36’, which creates a long breezeway to connect the side door of the house with the carport. According
to the applicant, the location of the new addition at that distance from the house or main structure and
the breezeway is proposed to accommodate two existing site conditions. The first condition is to use the
existing driveway curb cut and maintain the carport footprint as it currently exists. The second is to not
encroach too closely to three existing trees, two large trees outside the property’s fence and in the City’s
right-of-way along E. 17th Street, and one smaller tree within the property. Although the large trees in
the right-of-way might be spaced far enough apart that a driveway could be constructed between the
trees without harming the root systems, there is also a manhole cover in the right-of-way between the
Page 12 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-34-COA –1610 S. Church Street Page 4 of 12
trees that prevents that from being a feasible driveway location to provide access to a carport situated
closer to the main structure. It is staff’s evaluation that the addition could be placed close enough to the
west right-of-way tree that the project would not require the encroachment into the rear (west) 10’
setback, however the driveway may need to be configured at an angle toward the carport if pavement
cannot be installed for the driveway surface closer to the tree’s root system. If the rear setback
modification were not required because the addition was placed closer to the main structure, the
proposed height of the structure at the rear 10’ setback would still require approval of a building height
modification.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.10 Non-traditional siding materials are
discouraged.
Typically, artificial stone and brick veneer are
not appropriate.
Asphalt shingles are not appropriate.
Aluminum and vinyl are not appropriate.
Complies
Proposed siding material is a fiber composite
board and batten siding, which has a similar
appearance to traditional siding materials.
14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic
features.
Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability
to interpret the design character of the original
building or period of significance.
Alterations that seek to imply an earlier pe-
riod than that of the building are inappropri-
ate.
Complies
Proposed addition does not alter or remove
historic features and is proposed to have
minimal impact on the historic structure.
14.12 An addition shall be compatible in scale,
materials, and character with the main building.
An addition shall relate to the building in
mass, scale, and form. It should be designed to
remain subordinate to the main structure.
An addition to the front of a building is
usually inappropriate.
Complies
The addition is proposed to be to the rear of
the main building with compatible
materials and a simpler architectural style.
It is proposed to be two stories like the main
structure but separated from it by a
breezeway connection. The main house is
approximately 2,953 sq. ft. including the
covered front porch and the proposed
addition is 1,680 sq. ft. with a 342 sq. ft.
breezeway, or 68% of the size of the existing
house.
Page 13 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-34-COA –1610 S. Church Street Page 5 of 12
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.13 Design a new addition such that the original
character can be clearly seen.
In this way, a viewer can understand the
history of changes that have occurred to the
building.
An addition should be distinguishable from
the original building, even in subtle ways,
such that the character of the original can be
interpreted.
Creating a jog in the foundation between the
original and new structures may help to define
an addition.
Even applying new trim board at the con-
nection point between the addition and the
original structure can help define the addition.
See also Preservation Briefs #14: New Exterior
Additions to Historic Buildings, published by the
National Park Service.
Complies
Proposed addition does not diminish or
obscure the character of the historic
structure and is proposed to have a
separation that is distinguishable as a later
addition.
14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set
it back from the front to minimize the visual
impacts.
This will allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent.
Locating an addition at the front of a structure
is usually inappropriate.
Complies
Proposed addition is set back to the rear of
the historic structure, which will remain
prominent from the main street view, and
the addition is separated from the main
structure from the side street view.
14.15 Do not obscure, damage, destroy, or remove
original architectural details and materials of the
primary structure.
When preserving original details and materi-
als, follow the guidelines presented in this
document.
Complies
The addition is proposed to have minimal
impact on the historic structure.
14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale,
materials, character, and architectural style with the
main building.
An addition shall relate to the historic building
in mass, scale, and form. It should be designed
to remain subordinate to the main structure.
While a smaller addition is visually preferable,
if a residential addition would be significantly
Partially Complies
Proposed addition is compatible with the
main building, simple in design and sets the
second floor back from the front of the
carport to reduce the height along the street
façade of the structure. Additionally, is it
connected to the main structure via a
linking structure. However, the link is via
Page 14 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-34-COA –1610 S. Church Street Page 6 of 12
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
larger than the original building, one option is
to separate it from the primary building, when
feasible, and then link it with a smaller
connecting structure.
An addition should be simple in design to
prevent it from competing with the primary
façade.
Consider adding dormers to create second
story spaces before changing the scale of the
building by adding a full second floor.
an approximately 36’ long breezeway
between the main house and the
carport/storage/living structure, and the
length of the breezeway creates an addition
that is not as compatible with the character
of the main building as a shorter connection
would be.
14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in character
with that of the primary building.
Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are ap-
propriate for residential additions. Flat roofs
may be more appropriate for commercial
buildings.
Repeat existing roof slopes and materials.
If the roof of the primary building is symmetri-
cally proportioned, the roof of the addition
should be similar.
Complies
The roof style of the addition is proposed to
be a gable roof with two separate portions,
one over the carport and one over the
second floor living space. The main house
originally had a hip roof, but the later
additions created gabled dormers when the
second floor was added. The proposed roof
of the addition as well as the breezeway are
traditional roof styles with slopes that are
compatible with the historic main structure.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow
adequate review and final action;
Complies
Staff reviewed the application and deemed
it complete.
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Partially Complies
The proposed project requires three setback
modifications and two building height
modifications.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Partially Complies
SOI Standard #9: “New additions, exterior
alterations or related new construction will
Page 15 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-34-COA –1610 S. Church Street Page 7 of 12
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
not destroy historic materials, features and
spatial relationships that characterize the
property. The new work will be
differentiated from the old and will be
compatible with the historic materials,
features, size, scale and proportion, and
massing to protect the integrity of the
property and its environment.”
The proposed addition does create a change
to the property, and the breezeway
connection of approximately 36’ is a long
connection, although a preferred method of
connecting an addition as it requires
minimal alterations to the historic main
structure. The proposed carport/storage/
living area addition is compatible with and
differentiated from the historic structure.
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially Complies
Proposed project complies or partially
complies with applicable Design
Guidelines.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Partially Complies
The proposed addition has minimal impact
to the integrity of the historic main
structure as the breezeway connection to
the main structure is proposed to be located
at a rear side door. The main part of the
addition is also proposed to be in a location
in which there has been a shed or garage
structure since at least 1925. However, the
length of the proposed breezeway is not
consistent with the historic character of the
site.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
The proposed addition is compatible with
surrounding properties. Although the
surrounding properties are primarily a
single story in height, the proposed
addition sets the second-floor portion back
from the street façade of the carport to
Page 16 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-34-COA –1610 S. Church Street Page 8 of 12
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
minimize the impact of the second floor
from the street view.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Partially Complies
The proposed addition does not diminish
the character of the Old Town Overlay
District, with the exception of the long
breezeway connection, which is longer than
other connections that have been
constructed to facilitate residential
additions.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
Not Applicable
No signage is proposed as part of this
project.
In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a
request for COA for a setback modification:
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is
solely a matter of convenience;
Partially Complies
Three setback modifications are proposed as
part of this project. The setback for the
interior lot line is due to the lot lines for the
property and complies with this criterion.
The setback encroachment for the south
property line along E. 17th Street is to place
the proposed structure in a location on the
site that does not cross the interior lot line
and complies with this criterion. The setback
encroachment into the rear (west) setback is
a matter of convenience and based on the
location of the driveway curb cut and
existing carport.
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow
the proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;
Partially Complies
The proposed addition would not have
room on the site without the 25’ garage
setback and 6’ side setback encroachments
(south property line and interior lot line),
but there is adequate room on the site
without the 10’ rear (west) setback
encroachment.
Page 17 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-34-COA –1610 S. Church Street Page 9 of 12
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in
context within the block in which the subject
property is located;
Complies
The proposed setback encroachments are
consistent and compatible with surrounding
properties within the same block.
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure
will be set closer to the street than other units
within the block;
Complies
The proposed carport portion of the
addition would be set closer to the street
than the carport on the adjacent property to
the west, however it would be the same
distance to the street as the existing carport.
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a
structure removed within the past year;
Not Applicable
The proposed structure would be replacing
the existing non-historic structure.
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a
structure that previously existed with relatively
the same footprint and encroachment as
proposed;
Not Applicable
The proposed structure would be replacing
the existing structure, which has a smaller
footprint but similar encroachment as the
proposed structure.
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure
that is replacing another structure, whether the
proposed structure is significantly larger than
the original;
Partially Complies
The proposed encroachments are for a
structure that is proposed to have a 576 sq.
ft. carport and 384 sq. ft. storage area on the
ground level and a 720 sq. ft. living area
above, for a total of 1,680 sq. ft. The existing
carport is 361 sq. ft. and the storage area is
237.5 sq. ft. for a total of 598.5 sq. ft. The
proposed structure is nearly three times
larger than the existing structure, however
the encroachment into the south and west
setbacks is the same as the existing
encroachment.
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition,
the scale of the addition compared to the original
house;
Partially Complies
The main house is approximately 2,953 sq.
ft. including the covered front porch and the
proposed addition is 1,680 sq. ft. with a 342
sq. ft. breezeway, or 68% of the size of the
existing house. While large in comparison to
the existing house, the addition is also
separated by the proposed breezeway.
Page 18 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-34-COA –1610 S. Church Street Page 10 of 12
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to
similar structures within the same block;
Does Not Comply
The proposed addition is two stories in
height, and the surrounding properties in
the same block have single story structures,
except for the adjacent property to the west,
which has a two-story portion. With the
proposed addition, this structure would be
larger than most surrounding structures,
and include a longer breezeway connection
than has been constructed on other
properties.
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure
will negatively impact adjoining properties,
including limiting their ability to maintain
existing buildings;
Complies
The proposed addition is not anticipated to
negatively impact adjoining properties,
including the ability to maintain existing
buildings.
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance
of the proposed addition or new structure and/or
any adjacent structures; and/or
Complies
The proposed setback encroachments leave
adequate space for maintenance.
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing
large trees or significant features of the lot to be
preserved.
Partially Complies
The rear setback encroachment is the only
proposed encroachment to which this criteria
would apply, and while the encroachment
does not enable the preservation of a large
tree on the property, it does prevent
driveway encroachment into the critical root
zone of a large pecan tree within the city’s
right-of-way.
In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a
request for COA for a building height modification:
SECTION 3.13.030.C.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
a. Views to and from the Courthouse and to and from
the Town Square Historic District will be
protected; and
Complies
The proposed height of the addition does
not block views to and from the Courthouse.
b. The character of the Downtown Overlay District
and the Town Square District will be defined,
reinforced and preserved; and
Not Applicable
Proposed project is not located within the
Downtown Overlay District or Town Square
District.
Page 19 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-34-COA –1610 S. Church Street Page 11 of 12
SECTION 3.13.030.C.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
c. The relationship of the proposed project to the
existing structures in the immediate vicinity
remains consistent; and
Partially Complies
The main structure on the subject property
is two stories in height and the proposed
addition is also two stories in height,
however the structures in the immediate
vicinity are one story in height.
d. The proposed project allows for the best
utilization of redevelopment in the Downtown
Overlay District and the Town Square Historic
District; and
Not Applicable
Proposed project is not located within the
Downtown Overlay District or Town Square
District.
e. The proposed project protects the historic
buildings in the Downtown Overlay District.
Not Applicable
Proposed project is not located within the
Downtown Overlay District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for:
• the addition;
• the 5’-4” setback encroachment into the required 25’ street-facing garage setback to allow a
residential structure 19’-8” from the side street (south) property line;
• the 2’-9” setback encroachment into the required 6’ side (north) setback for Lot 5 to allow a
residential structure 3’-3” from the lot line, and the 8’-0” building height modification to the
required 15’ maximum building height at the side (north) setback for Lot 5, to allow a
building height of 23’-0” at the side (north) setback;
and DENIAL of the request for:
• the 4’-6” setback encroachment into the required 10’ rear (west) setback, to allow a
residential structure 5’-6” from the rear (west) property line;
and APPROVAL of the 8’-0” building height modification to the required 15’ maximum building
height at the rear (west) setback, to allow a building height of 23’-0” at the rear (west) setback WITH
THE CONDITION THAT the building height modification be reduced to 5’-0” to coordinate with
the disapproval of the request for the rear setback modification.
Requiring the addition to be constructed without the rear setback encroachment would move the
addition 4’-6” closer to the main structure, reducing the length of the breezeway and still
sufficiently distanced from the large tree in the City’s right-of-way. It would also reduce the needed
building height modification from 8’-0” to 5’-0” at the rear setback.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments on the request.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 20 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-34-COA –1610 S. Church Street Page 12 of 12
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Survey
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Page 21 of 158
Location
2020-34-COA
Exhibit #1
W 17TH ST
E 15TH ST
KN
I
G
H
T
S
T
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
ASH
S
T
ELM
S
T
SMYRTLE
ST
E 17TH ST
E 17TH 1/2 ST
S M
A
I
N
S
T
E 17TH 1/
2
S
T
CYRUS AV
E
E 16TH ST
E 17TH ST
E 17TH 1
/
2
S
T
E 16TH ST
EU
B
A
N
K
S
T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
S A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
CYRUS AV
E
W 16TH ST
GEO
R
G
E
S
T
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 22 of 158
Green Earth Builders, LLC
2306 Waizel Way Georgetown, Texas 78626
Office: 512-591-7588 Cell: 512-779-0100
Web: WWW.GREENEARTHBUILDERS.NET Email: Jennifererin.jl@gmail.com
Letter of Intent
1610 S Church Street
1610 S Church St is a corner lot with E 17th St. Existing now is a gravel
driveway with a gravel carport and a storage room behind. Owners would like to
improve this area.
Owners would like to have a concrete drive and carport to accommodate
two vehicles. Enlarge the storage room in the back and add a game room
above.
The original structure for carport is 19’X19’ with gravel base and the
storage room at 12’6”X19’ in the back of the structure.
New dimensions for structure will be 24’X24’ for carport and 24’X16’ for
storage room. Second floor game room will be 24’X30’.
With this added space there also will be a breezeway crossing the back
yard covering approximately 36’X6’ attaching the carport to the structure of the
house. The walkway will be made of stepping stone. The cover will match the
existing house.
Page 23 of 158
Page 24 of 158
Site Plan
Page 25 of 158
South (17th Street) Elevation
Page 26 of 158
East Elevation (Facing House)
Page 27 of 158
1. County
City/Rural Georgetown
2. Name John & Susie Sherman HQII_Se
5. USGS Quad No. 3097-313 Site No 519 Williamson
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM — TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8-82)
1. County Wi 11 I am7on wM 5. USGS Quad No. i097-313 Site No 519
City/Rural Georgetown GE UTM Sector 6`)7-3389
2. Name John Snsi e Sherman .R House 6 Date: Factual 1913 Est
Address 161n Church 7 Architect/Builder
ContractorGri ffi th Ltimher Co
3. Owner Young Est r/n Ernest C Younc, 8 Style/Type
Address Pt_ 2, Inks Dam, Burn-et , TX -Z.S6J19. Original Use residential
4. Block/Lot T oan/R1 it G./Int 5, p 4 Present Use resi denti al
10. Description One—story wood frame dwelling; exterior walls w/ beveled wood siding; hip roof w/
bell—cast hip roof wJ composition shingles: front elev. faces E.: two interior brick
c hi mnpyQ cnrhpi pd rap wood sash rinuhl e—hung wi ndows w/ 1 /1 lights & crown mol di ng,s;
single doer ee-t r w1 sidelights• three—bay porch within F cl aw ; nor; r col limns Other
11. Present Condition end
12. Significance Primary a rea of si gni fi ranra • architecture_ A gond example of an early twentieth
century dwelling.
13. Relationship to Site: Moved Date or Original Site x (describe)
14. Bibliography Tax rol 1 s, Mechani r s T.i ens, 15. Informant
GNS filp, canhnrn Maps 16. Recorder A .. Tayl or /T-THM Date y 1954
DESIGNATIONS PHOTO DATA
TN RIS No THC Code B&W 4x5s Slides
q RTHL q HABS (no.) TEX-35mm Negs.
YEAR DRWR ROLL FRME
to
to
to
ROLL FRME N R: q Individual 0 Historic District
0 Thematic q Multiple-Resource
NR File Name
41
G.Q 4c) 5
Other
CONTINUATION PAGE
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM — TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8-82)
No
#10. Description (cont'd): noteworthy features include symmetrical three-bay facade; wood
shingle foundation skirt which tapers upward. Outbuildings include wood frame
double garage.
Page 28 of 158
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Old Town District
Address:1610 Church St 2016 Survey ID:123891
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R043045Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 3/14/2016Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1920
Bungalow
Other:
Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan
Rectangular
T-plan
Four Square
L-plan
Irregular
Plan*
International
Ranch
No Style
Post-war Modern
Commercial Style
Other:
Pueblo Revival
Prairie
Art Deco
Spanish Colonial
Craftsman
Moderne
Gothic Revival
Neo-Classical
Mission
Tudor Revival
Beaux Arts
Monterey
Shingle
Folk Victorian
Renaissance Revival
Romanesque Revival
Colonial Revival
Exotic Revival
Log traditional
Italianate
Eastlake
Greek Revival
Second Empire
Queen Anne
Stylistic Influence(s)*
Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s)
General Notes: (Notes from 2007 Survey: shingles non-original (see '84 photos); dormer non-original)
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:780
ID:519
*Photographs and Preservation Priority have been updated in 2016, and the year built date has also been reviewed. However, the plan and style
data are sourced directly from the 2007 survey.
2007 Survey
1984 Survey
Current/Historic Name None/None
ID:123891 2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Despite some alterations, property is significant and contributes to neighborhood character
Latitude:30.629391 Longitude -97.675149
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: West
Page 29 of 158
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:Old Town District
Address:1610 Church St 2016 Survey ID:123891
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
Additional Photos
NorthwestPhoto Direction
Shed
NorthwestPhoto Direction
Page 30 of 158
1610 S. Church Street Garage
2020-34-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
August 27, 2020
1Page 31 of 158
Item Under Consideration
2020-34-COA –1610 S. Church Street Garage
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for:
•an addition to a street facing façade;
•a 5’-4” setback encroachment into the required 25’ street-facing garage setback to allow a
residential structure 19’-8” from the side street (south) property line;
•a 4’-6” setback encroachment into the required 10’ rear (west) setback, to allow a residential
structure 5’-6” from the rear (west) property line;
•a 2’-9” setback encroachment into the required 6’ side (north) setback for Lot 5 to allow a
residential structure 3’-3” from the lot line;
•an 8’-0” building height modification to the required 15’ maximum building height at the rear
(west) setback, to allow a building height of 23’-0” at the rear (west) setback; and
•an 8’-0” building height modification to the required 15’ maximum building height at the side
(north) setback for Lot 5, to allow a building height of 23’-0” at the side (north) setback
at the property located at 1610 S. Church Street, bearing the legal description of Lot 5 and the south
part of Lot 4 of Block 4 of the Logan Addition.
2Page 32 of 158
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade for a medium
priority structure
•A 2’-9” setback encroachment with an 8’-0” building height modification at the Lot 4/Lot 5
setback to allow a two-story addition 3’-3” from the lot line to the interior of the property;
•a 5’-4” setback encroachment into the required 25’ street-facing garage setback to allow a
carport 19’-8” from the side street (south) property line; and
•a 4’-6” setback encroachment into the required 10’ rear (west) setback, to allow a
carport/storage living structure 5’-6” from the rear (west) property line (same
encroachment as the existing carport/storage) with an 8’-0” building height modification
to the required 15’ maximum building height at the rear (west) setback, to allow a building
height of 23’-0” at the rear (west) setback.
3Page 33 of 158
Item Under Consideration
4Page 34 of 158
5Page 35 of 158
Current Context
6Page 36 of 158
1916 Sanborn Map
7Page 37 of 158
1925 Sanborn Map
8Page 38 of 158
1964 Aerial Photo
9Page 39 of 158
1974 Aerial Photo
10Page 40 of 158
1981 Texas Historical Commission Photo
11Page 41 of 158
1981 Texas Historical Commission Photo
12
Page 42 of 158
Current Photo
13
Page 43 of 158
Current Photo
14
Page 44 of 158
Current Photo
15
Page 45 of 158
Current Photos
16
Page 46 of 158
Current Photo
17
Page 47 of 158
Current Photo
18Page 48 of 158
Site Survey
19
Lot 4/Lot 5 Line
Setback & Building
Height Modification
(North & West)
Setback Modification
(Carport)Page 49 of 158
Proposed Addition -Plan
20Page 50 of 158
Proposed Addition –South & East Elevations
21Page 51 of 158
Current Context
22Page 52 of 158
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Partially
Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;
Partially
Complies
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially
Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Partially
Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;Complies
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Partially
Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and
character of the historic overlay district.N/A 23Page 53 of 158
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience;Partially
Complies
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;
Partially
Complies
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject
property is located;Complies
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units
within the block;Complies
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within the past year;N/A
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with relatively the
same footprint and encroachment as proposed;N/A
24Page 54 of 158
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030.D.2
Criteria Staff’s Finding
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether the
proposed structure is significantly larger than the original;
Partially
Complies
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original
house;
Partially
Complies
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block;Does Not
Comply
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;Complies
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new structure and/or
any adjacent structures; and/or Complies
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the lot to be
preserved.
Partially
Complies 25Page 55 of 158
Building Height Modification Approval Criteria
–UDC Section 3.13.030.C.2
Criteria Staff’s Finding
a. Views to and from the Courthouse and to and from the Town Square Historic District will be
protected; and Complies
b. The character of the Downtown Overlay District and the Town Square District will be defined,
reinforced and preserved; and N/A
c. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing structures in the immediate vicinity
remains consistent; and Partially Complies
d. The proposed project allows for the best utilization of redevelopment in the Downtown Overlay
District and the Town Square Historic District; and N/A
e. The proposed project protects the historic buildings in the Downtown Overlay District.N/A
26Page 56 of 158
Public Notification
•Two (2) signs posted
•Forty (40) letters mailed
•No comments received
27Page 57 of 158
Recommendation
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for:
•the addition;•the 5’-4” setback encroachment into the required 25’ street-facing garage setback to allow a residential structure 19’-8” from the side street (south) property line;•the 2’-9” setback encroachment into the required 6’ side (north) setback for Lot 5 to allow a residential structure 3’-3” from the lot line, and the 8’-0” building height modification to the required 15’ maximum building height at the side (north) setback for Lot 5, to allow a building height of 23’-0” at the side (north) setback;
and DENIAL of the request for:
•the 4’-6” setback encroachment into the required 10’ rear (west) setback, to allow a residential structure 5’-6” from the rear (west) property line;
and APPROVAL of the 8’-0” building height modification to the required 15’ maximum building height at the rear (west) setback, to allow a building height of 23’-0” at the rear (west) setback with the condition that the building height modification be reduced to 5’-0” to coordinate with the disapproval of the request for the rear setback modification.
28Page 58 of 158
HARC Motion –2020-34-COA
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
29Page 59 of 158
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 27, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and P ossible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for an
addition to a s treet fac ing faç ade, a 10' s etbac k enc roachment into the required 25' s treet-facing garage
s etbac k to allow a residential s tructure 15' from the side s treet (north) property line, and a 7’-6” building
height modific ation to the required 15’ maximum building height at the s ide street (north) s etbac k, to allow a
building height of 22’-6” at the s ide street (north) s etbac k at the property located at 1403 Ash S treet,
bearing the legal des cription of 0.497 ac res out of the Northwest P art of Bloc k 8 of the Hughes Addition.
(2020-39-C O A) – Britin Bos tic k, Downtown & Historic P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he ap p lic ant is reques ting HAR C approval of a two-sto ry garage and living s p ace ad d ition to the rear of
the existing o ne-sto ry his toric s tructure. T he existing main ho use is approximately 1,300 sq. ft. and the
propos ed additio n is 768 s q . ft. o n eac h floor fo r a total o f 1,536 s q . ft., with an approximately 54 s q . ft.
breezeway. T he total s q. ft. of the propos ed additio n would be ap p ro ximately 1,590 sq. ft., or a 122%
inc reas e over the existing square footage, not inc luding decks and porc hes.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None. T he applicant has paid the required application fees .
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Surveys Exhibit
Exhibit 5 - Additional Historic Information Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 60 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-39-COA – 1403 Ash Street Page 1 of 10
Meeting Date: August 27, 2020
File Number: 2020-39-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for an
addition to a street facing façade, a 10' setback encroachment into the required 25' street-facing garage
setback to allow a residential structure 15' from the side street (north) property line, and a 7’-6” building
height modification to the required 15’ maximum building height at the side street (north) setback, to
allow a building height of 22’-6” at the side street (north) setback at the property located at 1403 Ash
Street, bearing the legal description of 0.497 acres out of the Northwest Part of Block 8 of the Hughes
Addition.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: 1403 Ash Street Garage Addition
Applicant: Cheryl Canfield
Property Owner: Lois Canfield
Property Address: 1403 Ash Street
Legal Description: 0.497 acres out of the Northwest Part of Block 8 of the Hughes Addition
Historic Overlay: Old Town Overlay District
Case History: N/A
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction: 1900 (HRS – As early as 1882 per public records)
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Medium
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing facade
Setback modification
Building height modification
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting HARC approval of a two-story garage and living space addition to the rear
of the existing one-story historic structure. The existing main house is approximately 1,300 sq. ft. and the
proposed addition is 768 sq. ft. on each floor for a total of 1,536 sq. ft., with a 102 sq. ft. breezeway. The
total sq. ft. of the proposed addition would be approximately 1,638 sq. ft., or a 126% increase over the
existing square footage, not including decks and porches.
Page 61 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-39-COA – 1403 Ash Street Page 2 of 10
Property & Owner History
The 1984 and 2016 Historic Resource Surveys estimate a construction date of 1900 for the house at 1403
Ash Street, which is first visible on the 1916 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. Public records show that on
October 3, 1881, I. W. and M. E. Lane sold a property to S. O. Eidman for $230.50. This deed record and
those following indicate that S. O. Eidman and his wife Virginia built the house or the original portion
of it between 1881 and 1899 on what became the west half of Block 8 of the Hughes Addition, and the
Eidman-Nunn House is situated on the southeast part of the same block, facing College Street. Virginia
Eidman bought the east half of what became Block 9 of the Hughes Addition from G. W. and Ellen Payne
on November 22, 1879. S. O. Eidman wrote about this block and the large house on College Street, but
did not mention the house on Ash, which may have been rented to some of the family’s many boarders.
Eidman was already living in Bay City when he sold the large house and the east half of Block 8 to J. P.
Smith in September 1908.
S. O. Eidman and his wife V. E. sold the northwest quarter of Block 8 of the Hughes Addition to W. L.
Gray in October 1899 for $900. W. L. and Lula Gray sold the property to W. B. Overby for $950 in 1905.
In 1910 W. B. and B. F. Overby sold the property to S. B. Johnston for $1,225. Mrs. B. V. Stone bought the
property from S. B. and C. R. Johnston for $1,275 in 1911. in October of 1916, Mrs. B. V. Stone sold the
northwest corner quarter of Block 8 of the Hughes Addition to Robert Henry Chreitzberg for $2,000.
Robert owned the property until 1953, when sold it to John and Esther Richards for $6,000 after his wife
Lillie passed away. The Griffith Lumber Company had a lien on the property for a $1,500 note for
improvements in 1923 that were done for the Chreitzbergs, and records show they also paid for paving
work done in 1926. Based on the Sanborn maps the front porch appears to have been changed from an
L-shaped porch wrapping the west and south facades of the house to the current west porch, and a rear
porch appears to have been closed in over time. The 1964 and 1974 aerial photos show what appears to
be a rear addition in approximately the same location as the addition proposed with this application,
although the design and height of that addition or when it was removed are not known. The addition
may have been a carport structure, based on the location of the existing concrete driveway. Additional
historic information for the property and S. O. Eidman is provided in Exhibit 5.
Proposed Project
The current owner is requesting HARC approval of a garage addition, which would have a garage,
laundry and work area on the first floor and a living area on the second floor, and be accessed via an
exterior staircase on the east side of the addition. The proposed size of the first and second floors is 32’ x
24’ or 768 sq. ft. for a total of 1,536 sq. ft., with a proposed breezeway connection of 102 sq. ft. The existing
historic house is approximately 1,300 sq. ft. with a 180 sq. ft. front porch. The addition is proposed to
have fiber composite siding, vinyl windows, asphalt shingles and fiber composite decking material for
the stairs and second floor deck. The existing historic structure has asbestos siding, wood windows,
asphalt shingles and wood columns and trim.
The addition is proposed to be located to the rear of the main structure, and the owner is requesting a
10’ modification to the 25’ street-facing garage setback so that the garage addition can be constructed in
line with the north façade of the existing house, which would keep the structure behind the historic
Page 62 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-39-COA – 1403 Ash Street Page 3 of 10
structure rather than visible to the right side as viewed from Ash Street. Locating the addition with a 15’
setback would also require a 7’-6” building height modification, as the gable roof above the second floor
has an average roof height of 22’-6”.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
14.10 Non-traditional siding materials are
discouraged.
Typically, artificial stone and brick veneer are
not appropriate.
Asphalt shingles are not appropriate.
Aluminum and vinyl are not appropriate.
Complies
Proposed siding material is a fiber
composite lapped siding, which has a
similar appearance to traditional siding
materials. The main structure has asbestos
siding.
14.11 Avoid alterations that would damage historic
features.
Avoid alterations that would hinder the ability
to interpret the design character of the original
building or period of significance.
Alterations that seek to imply an earlier pe-
riod than that of the building are inappropri-
ate.
Complies
Proposed addition does not alter or remove
historic features and is proposed to have
minimal impact on the historic structure by
using a breezeway connector.
14.12 An addition shall be compatible in scale,
materials, and character with the main building.
An addition shall relate to the building in
mass, scale, and form. It should be designed to
remain subordinate to the main structure.
An addition to the front of a building is
usually inappropriate.
Complies
The addition is proposed to be to the rear of
the main building with compatible
materials and a simple architectural style. It
is proposed to be two stories unlike the one-
story main structure and connected by a
breezeway. The existing main house is
approximately 1,300 sq. ft. and the
proposed addition is 768 sq. ft. on each floor
for a total of 1,536 sq. ft., with a 102 sq. ft.
breezeway. The total sq. ft. of the proposed
addition would be approximately 1,638 sq.
ft., or a 126% increase over the existing
square footage, not including proposed
decks on the addition and the front porch of
the main structure. The proposed addition
Page 63 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-39-COA – 1403 Ash Street Page 4 of 10
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
is taller than the single-story structure, but
the scale, materials and character are
compatible with the main building.
14.13 Design a new addition such that the original
character can be clearly seen.
In this way, a viewer can understand the
history of changes that have occurred to the
building.
An addition should be distinguishable from
the original building, even in subtle ways,
such that the character of the original can be
interpreted.
Creating a jog in the foundation between the
original and new structures may help to define
an addition.
Even applying new trim board at the con-
nection point between the addition and the
original structure can help define the addition.
See also Preservation Briefs #14: New Exterior
Additions to Historic Buildings, published by the
National Park Service.
Complies
Proposed addition does not diminish or
obscure the character of the historic
structure and is proposed to be separated
via a breezeway connector so that it can be
understood as a later addition.
14.14 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set
it back from the front to minimize the visual
impacts.
This will allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent.
Locating an addition at the front of a structure
is usually inappropriate.
Complies
Proposed addition is set back to the rear of
the historic structure, which will remain
prominent from the façade (Ash Street)
view, and the addition is separated from the
main structure from the side street view via
a breezeway.
14.16 An addition shall be compatible in scale,
materials, character, and architectural style with the
main building.
An addition shall relate to the historic building
in mass, scale, and form. It should be designed
to remain subordinate to the main structure.
While a smaller addition is visually preferable,
if a residential addition would be significantly
larger than the original building, one option is
to separate it from the primary building, when
Partially Complies
Proposed addition is compatible with the
main building as it is simple in design and
sets the second floor back from the Ash
Street view, although due to the proposed
setback modification the proposed addition
would be a prominent part of the E. 14th
Street view. Some of the features of the
historic structure have been removed,
altered or covered (as with the asbestos
siding), and a specific architectural design is
Page 64 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-39-COA – 1403 Ash Street Page 5 of 10
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 14 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INFILL CONSTRUCTION AND
ADDITIONS IN THE OLD TOWN OVERLAY DISTRICT
feasible, and then link it with a smaller
connecting structure.
An addition should be simple in design to
prevent it from competing with the primary
façade.
Consider adding dormers to create second
story spaces before changing the scale of the
building by adding a full second floor.
difficult to define or categorize for the
structure other than as a “folk vernacular
style” – built from available materials
without the detailing that characterizes
many later structures, especially due to its
assumed age. The proposed addition has a
similar simplicity and lack of
ornamentation. The addition is proposed to
connect to the main structure via a linking
structure, the breezeway.
14.18 The roof of a new addition shall be in character
with that of the primary building.
Typically, gable, hip, and shed roofs are ap-
propriate for residential additions. Flat roofs
may be more appropriate for commercial
buildings.
Repeat existing roof slopes and materials.
If the roof of the primary building is symmetri-
cally proportioned, the roof of the addition
should be similar.
Complies
The roof style of the addition is proposed to
be a symmetrical gable roof to be consistent
with the roof style of the main structure.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the application
is correct and sufficient enough to allow
adequate review and final action;
Complies
Staff reviewed the application and deemed
it complete.
2. Compliance with any design standards of this
Code;
Partially Complies
Proposed addition requires a setback
modification and a building height
modification.
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties to the most extent practicable;
Complies
SOI Standard #9: “New additions, exterior
alterations or related new construction will
not destroy historic materials, features and
Page 65 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-39-COA – 1403 Ash Street Page 6 of 10
SECTION 3.13.030 CRITERIA FINDINGS
spatial relationships that characterize the
property. The new work will be
differentiated from the old and will be
compatible with the historic materials,
features, size, scale and proportion, and
massing to protect the integrity of the
property and its environment.”
The proposed addition does create new
spatial relationships on the site as it adds a
two-story structure to the rear of what has
previously been only a single-story
structure, but the addition is compatible
with and differentiated from the historic
structure. The proposed addition is situated
to the rear of the historic structure from the
main façade (Ash Street), although it is in
taller than the historic main structure.
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and
Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially Complies
Complies or partially complies with
applicable Design Guidelines.
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural
integrity of the building, structure or site is
preserved;
Complies
The proposed addition has minimal impact
to the historic main structure as it is
proposed to be attached via a breezeway,
and the main structure has had some
exterior alterations over time, which appear
to include rear additions and modifications
to the front porch.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be
compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;
Complies
The proposed addition is compatible with
surrounding properties in the Old Town
Overlay District.
7. The overall character of the applicable historic
overlay district is protected; and
Complies
Proposed project does not diminish the
character of the Old Town Overlay District.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
Not Applicable
No signage is proposed as part of this
project.
Page 66 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-39-COA – 1403 Ash Street Page 7 of 10
In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a
request for COA for a setback modification:
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely
a matter of convenience;
Complies
The proposed setback encroachment is to
allow the proposed addition to be fully
behind the existing single-story structure,
rather than for it to extend behind the
right side of the existing historic structure
as viewed from Ash Street.
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow
the proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;
Partially Complies
There is adequate room to construct the
proposed addition on the site without the
proposed setback modification. However,
if the required 25’ street-facing garage
setback were observed, the proposed
addition would not be able to be aligned
completely to the rear of the existing
historic structure as viewed from Ash
Street.
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in
context within the block in which the subject
property is located;
Partially Complies
Other structures within the block and on
adjacent blocks have street-facing garages
that encroach into the 25’ setback,
including garage additions. However,
along E. 14th Street there are also
structures that are set back further than
15’.
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
be set closer to the street than other units within the
block;
Complies
Other structures along E. 14th Street are
situated with a similar setback to the
proposed setback, including garages.
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a
structure removed within the past year;
Not Applicable
No recent structures are proposed to be
replaced.
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a
structure that previously existed with relatively the
same footprint and encroachment as proposed;
Complies
The 1964 and 1974 aerial photos show
what appears to be an addition with
approximately the same footprint,
location and setback encroachment as the
proposed addition.
Page 67 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-39-COA – 1403 Ash Street Page 8 of 10
SECTION 3.13.030.D.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that
is replacing another structure, whether the
proposed structure is significantly larger than the
original;
Partially Complies
There is not a recent structure proposed to
be replaced, however there appears to
have been a structure in approximately the
same location, although the size and
height of the previous structure is not
known.
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the
scale of the addition compared to the original house;
Partially Complies
The existing main house is approximately
1,300 sq. ft. and the proposed addition is
768 sq. ft. on each floor for a total of 1,536
sq. ft., with a 102 sq. ft. breezeway. The
total sq. ft. of the proposed addition
would be approximately 1,638 sq. ft., or a
126% increase over the existing square
footage, not including decks and porches.
The proposed addition is a two-story
structure and the existing structure is a
single story.
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar
structures within the same block;
Complies
The existing structure is similar in size or
smaller than surrounding structures, and
with the prosed addition it would also be
similar to or smaller than surrounding
structures.
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will
negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;
Complies
The proposed setback modification does
not negatively impact adjoining
properties or limit their ability maintain
existing buildings.
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of
the proposed addition or new structure and/or any
adjacent structures; and/or
Complies
The proposed setback modification is for
a side street setback and the proposed
addition does not limit the maintenance
of any adjacent structures.
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing
large trees or significant features of the lot to be
preserved.
Not Applicable
No large trees or other significant features
are proposed to be preserved or removed
as part of this project.
Page 68 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-39-COA – 1403 Ash Street Page 9 of 10
In addition to the approval criteria listed above, HARC must also consider the following criteria for a
request for COA for a building height modification:
SECTION 3.13.030.C.2 CRITERIA FINDINGS
a. Views to and from the Courthouse and to and from the
Town Square Historic District will be protected; and
Not Applicable
The proposed project is not located
within the Town Square Historic District.
b. The character of the Downtown Overlay District and
the Town Square District will be defined, reinforced
and preserved; and
Not Applicable
The proposed project is not located
within the Downtown Overlay District or
Town Square District.
c. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing
structures in the immediate vicinity remains
consistent; and
Complies
The proposed 7-6” building height
modification is requested due to the
height of the proposed addition at the
15’ side street setback, to place the
addition directly behind the existing
historic structure from the Ash Street
view. There are other two-story
structures in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed project, and the building
height modification is proposed at a side
street setback and not on a setback for an
adjacent property.
d. The proposed project allows for the best utilization of
redevelopment in the Downtown Overlay District
and the Town Square Historic District; and
Not Applicable
The proposed project is not located
within the Downtown Overlay District or
Town Square District.
e. The proposed project protects the historic buildings in
the Downtown Overlay District.
Not Applicable
The proposed project is not located
within the Downtown Overlay District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 69 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-39-COA – 1403 Ash Street Page 10 of 10
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Surveys
Exhibit 5 – Additional Historic Information
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
Page 70 of 158
Location
2020-39-COA
Exhibit #1
E 15TH ST
S
C
H
U
R
C
H
S
T
WAL
N
U
T
S
T
E 16TH ST
WAL
N
U
T
S
T
S C
O
L
L
E
G
E
S
T
ASH
S
T
E 16TH ST
ELMST
S M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
S
M
Y
R
T
L
E
S
T
E 16TH ST
E 13TH ST
E 14TH ST
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 71 of 158
Page 72 of 158
1403 Ash Street
Georgetown, Texas
The Property of Possibilities
Front of the house at Ash and 14 th street
Page 73 of 158
Driveway where the new garage addition will be located off of 14 th street
Page 74 of 158
Page 75 of 158
Page 76 of 158
Driveway from 14 th street
Side of house from 14th street
Page 77 of 158
Side of house from 14th street
Side of house from south side yard
Page 78 of 158
South side of house facing side yard.
Page 79 of 158
South side of house facing side yard. Window example f rom this side of the house.
Page 80 of 158
Back door access from the driveway
Page 81 of 158
Roof line to Back door steps
Back door (not sealing)
Front steps
Page 82 of 158
14th STREET
ROBERT E & LOIS F CANFIELD
1403 ASH STREET
GEORGETOWN TX 78626
HUGHES ADDITION
BLOCK 8
LOT SIZE: 21,127 SQ. FT.
177.59'
N89d41'39"E
PROPERTY LINE
176.51'
N89d54'02"E
PROPERTY LINE
SET BACK
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
N0
d
0
'
0
"
E
11
9
.
0
1
'
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
S0
d
3
0
'
4
9
"
W
11
9
.
6
6
'
15
'
-
5
"
17'-5"
17
'
-
5
"
EXISTING HOME
CO
V
E
R
E
D
P
O
R
C
H
25'-0" SET BACK
EXISTING WALKWAY
AS
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
17'-0"
PROPOSED GARAGE/ADU
DATE
PLAN REVISIONS
PLAN STATUS
FILE NO.:
SCALE:
DATE:
SHEET
A
P
L
U
S
O
R
M
I
N
U
S
T
O
L
E
R
A
N
C
E
.
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
V
A
R
I
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
S
H
O
U
L
D
T
H
E
R
E
F
O
R
E
B
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
A
S
H
A
V
I
N
G
DI
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
S
H
O
W
N
O
N
T
H
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
A
R
E
S
U
B
J
E
C
T
T
O
S
I
T
E
A
N
D
PR
O
J
E
C
T
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
T
O
C
A
R
E
F
U
L
L
Y
I
N
S
P
E
C
T
A
L
L
T
H
E
S
E
P
L
A
N
S
F
O
R
E
R
R
O
R
S
AN
D
O
M
M
I
S
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
N
O
T
I
F
Y
T
H
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
R
O
F
A
N
Y
D
I
S
C
R
E
P
E
N
C
I
E
S
.
TH
E
S
E
P
L
A
N
S
A
R
E
F
O
R
T
H
E
U
S
E
I
N
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
US
E
O
F
A
N
Y
P
A
R
T
O
F
T
H
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
B
Y
A
N
Y
O
N
E
WI
T
H
O
U
T
W
R
I
T
T
E
N
P
E
R
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
I
S
P
R
O
H
I
B
I
T
E
D
.
CO
N
T
E
N
T
S
O
F
T
H
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
I
N
T
E
N
T
A
N
D
S
T
A
T
E
A
N
D
LO
C
A
L
C
O
D
E
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E
.
I
T
I
S
T
H
E
U
S
E
R
'
S
A
N
D
S
U
B
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
'
S
OF
T
H
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
T
T
H
E
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
S
H
O
W
N
O
N
T
H
I
S
P
L
A
N
BE
S
T
M
A
D
E
P
L
A
N
S
,
L
L
C
DO
N
N
A
O
S
S
E
N
K
O
P
,
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
R
(5
4
1
)
3
5
0
-
4
3
2
0
SI
T
E
P
L
A
N
1
bm
p
@
b
e
n
d
b
r
o
a
d
b
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
LO
I
S
&
C
H
E
R
Y
L
C
A
N
F
I
E
L
D
14
0
3
A
S
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
GE
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
,
T
X
7
8
6
2
6
ENGINEERING
MIRROR STAIRS 04/23/20
Page 83 of 158
151' 10"
32' 0"
24' 0"
24' 0"
16' 9"
12' 9"
25' 0"
4' 1"
16' 6"
28' 0"
2' 0"
14' 1"
34' 6"
38' 4"
21' 8"
Proposed Breezeway
16' 0"
21' 8"
20' 0"
17' 0"
6' 8"
30' 0"
6' 8"
Existing House
Proposed Addition
Page 84 of 158
6
12
FRONT ELEVATION
RIGHT ELEVATION
LEFT ELEVATION
25
'
-
4
1 2"
9'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
GA
R
A
G
E
P
L
A
T
E
H
T
.
PL
A
T
E
H
T
.
6
12
25
'
-
4
1 2"
3'
-
0
"
3'
-
0
"
7'
-
6
"
3'
-
6
"
BACK ELEVATION
5/4x12 TRIM
BACK OF
STAIRWAY
CANTILEVER DECK 2'
2' CANTILEVER
2' CANTILEVER
DATE
PLAN REVISIONS
PLAN STATUS
FILE NO.:
SCALE:
DATE:
SHEET
A
P
L
U
S
O
R
M
I
N
U
S
T
O
L
E
R
A
N
C
E
.
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
V
A
R
I
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
S
H
O
U
L
D
T
H
E
R
E
F
O
R
E
B
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
A
S
H
A
V
I
N
G
DI
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
S
H
O
W
N
O
N
T
H
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
A
R
E
S
U
B
J
E
C
T
T
O
S
I
T
E
A
N
D
PR
O
J
E
C
T
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
T
O
C
A
R
E
F
U
L
L
Y
I
N
S
P
E
C
T
A
L
L
T
H
E
S
E
P
L
A
N
S
F
O
R
E
R
R
O
R
S
AN
D
O
M
M
I
S
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
N
O
T
I
F
Y
T
H
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
R
O
F
A
N
Y
D
I
S
C
R
E
P
E
N
C
I
E
S
.
TH
E
S
E
P
L
A
N
S
A
R
E
F
O
R
T
H
E
U
S
E
I
N
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
US
E
O
F
A
N
Y
P
A
R
T
O
F
T
H
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
B
Y
A
N
Y
O
N
E
WI
T
H
O
U
T
W
R
I
T
T
E
N
P
E
R
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
I
S
P
R
O
H
I
B
I
T
E
D
.
CO
N
T
E
N
T
S
O
F
T
H
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
I
N
T
E
N
T
A
N
D
S
T
A
T
E
A
N
D
LO
C
A
L
C
O
D
E
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E
.
I
T
I
S
T
H
E
U
S
E
R
'
S
A
N
D
S
U
B
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
'
S
ENGINEERING
OF
T
H
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
T
T
H
E
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
S
H
O
W
N
O
N
T
H
I
S
P
L
A
N
BE
S
T
M
A
D
E
P
L
A
N
S
,
L
L
C
DO
N
N
A
O
S
S
E
N
K
O
P
,
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
R
(5
4
1
)
3
5
0
-
4
3
2
0
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
3
bm
p
@
b
e
n
d
b
r
o
a
d
b
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
LO
I
S
&
C
H
E
R
Y
L
C
A
N
F
I
E
L
D
14
0
3
A
S
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
GE
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
,
T
X
7
8
6
2
6
MIRROR STAIRS 04/23/20
Page 85 of 158
Proposed Additio n
Exi st ing Hou se
Pr op o sed Br e e ze w a y
1403 Ash St. - Fron t Elevation
Page 86 of 158
12" O.C. IN FIELD STAGGER
JOINTS @ 48" O.C.
W/8d AT 6" O.C. AT EDGES AND
7/16 OSB EXP.1 APA RATED 48/24
FUR DOWN TO 9'
PLATE HT. IN BATHROOM VAULTED
AREA
ATTIC
ACCESS
COVERED DECK
ROOF PLAN
6/12 ROOF PITCH
STORAGE TRUSSES OVER BATHROOM AND KITCHEN AREA
DESIGN TRUSSES FOR HVAC EQUIPMENT
24" OVERHANG
PRE MANUFACTURED TRUSSES @ 24" O.C.
RI
D
G
E
4x6 HDR 4x6 HDR
4x
6
H
D
R
BE
A
M
S
I
Z
E
T
B
D
4x
6
H
D
R
4x
6
H
D
R
4x6 HDR
BE
A
M
S
I
Z
E
T
B
D
4x6 HDR
VAULTED
4x
6
H
D
R
DESIGN TRUSSES
FOR FURNACE
DATE
PLAN REVISIONS
PLAN STATUS
FILE NO.:
SCALE:
DATE:
SHEET
A
P
L
U
S
O
R
M
I
N
U
S
T
O
L
E
R
A
N
C
E
.
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
V
A
R
I
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
S
H
O
U
L
D
T
H
E
R
E
F
O
R
E
B
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
A
S
H
A
V
I
N
G
DI
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
S
H
O
W
N
O
N
T
H
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
A
R
E
S
U
B
J
E
C
T
T
O
S
I
T
E
A
N
D
PR
O
J
E
C
T
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
T
O
C
A
R
E
F
U
L
L
Y
I
N
S
P
E
C
T
A
L
L
T
H
E
S
E
P
L
A
N
S
F
O
R
E
R
R
O
R
S
AN
D
O
M
M
I
S
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
N
O
T
I
F
Y
T
H
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
R
O
F
A
N
Y
D
I
S
C
R
E
P
E
N
C
I
E
S
.
TH
E
S
E
P
L
A
N
S
A
R
E
F
O
R
T
H
E
U
S
E
I
N
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
US
E
O
F
A
N
Y
P
A
R
T
O
F
T
H
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
B
Y
A
N
Y
O
N
E
WI
T
H
O
U
T
W
R
I
T
T
E
N
P
E
R
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
I
S
P
R
O
H
I
B
I
T
E
D
.
CO
N
T
E
N
T
S
O
F
T
H
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
I
N
T
E
N
T
A
N
D
S
T
A
T
E
A
N
D
LO
C
A
L
C
O
D
E
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E
.
I
T
I
S
T
H
E
U
S
E
R
'
S
A
N
D
S
U
B
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
'
S
OF
T
H
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
T
T
H
E
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
S
H
O
W
N
O
N
T
H
I
S
P
L
A
N
BE
S
T
M
A
D
E
P
L
A
N
S
,
L
L
C
DO
N
N
A
O
S
S
E
N
K
O
P
,
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
R
(5
4
1
)
3
5
0
-
4
3
2
0
RO
O
F
P
L
A
N
5
bm
p
@
b
e
n
d
b
r
o
a
d
b
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
LO
I
S
&
C
H
E
R
Y
L
C
A
N
F
I
E
L
D
14
0
3
A
S
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
GE
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
,
T
X
7
8
6
2
6
ENGINEERING
MIRROR STAIRS 04/23/20
Page 87 of 158
RECESSED EYE
HEAT VENT
MINI-CAN
HOCKEY PUCK
UNDER CAB LIGHT
OVER CAB LIGHT
LEGEND
COACH LIGHT
SCONCE LIGHT
FAN
110 OUTLET
220 OUTLET
CABLE WIRE
PHONE JACK
DOORBELL
FLUOR. LIGHT
TV
GFI
DB
SWITCH
SMOKE DET.
CAN LIGHT
MOTION DET.
DIMMERDIM
FAN/LIGHT
GROUND FAULT INT.
HEAT/FAN/LIGHT
DB TRANSFORM
WALL HEATER
FIXTURE
CEILING FAN/LIGHT
SD
MD
UC
OC
WH
FREEZER
TV
DW
SD SD
DB
SWITCH PORCH LIGHT
WITH FRONT GARAGE LIGHTS
3
3 LIGHT BELOW AT DOOR
FURNACE IN ATTIC
3
DATE
PLAN REVISIONS
PLAN STATUS
FILE NO.:
SCALE:
DATE:
SHEET
A
P
L
U
S
O
R
M
I
N
U
S
T
O
L
E
R
A
N
C
E
.
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
V
A
R
I
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
S
H
O
U
L
D
T
H
E
R
E
F
O
R
E
B
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
A
S
H
A
V
I
N
G
DI
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
S
H
O
W
N
O
N
T
H
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
A
R
E
S
U
B
J
E
C
T
T
O
S
I
T
E
A
N
D
PR
O
J
E
C
T
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
T
O
C
A
R
E
F
U
L
L
Y
I
N
S
P
E
C
T
A
L
L
T
H
E
S
E
P
L
A
N
S
F
O
R
E
R
R
O
R
S
AN
D
O
M
M
I
S
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
N
O
T
I
F
Y
T
H
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
R
O
F
A
N
Y
D
I
S
C
R
E
P
E
N
C
I
E
S
.
TH
E
S
E
P
L
A
N
S
A
R
E
F
O
R
T
H
E
U
S
E
I
N
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
US
E
O
F
A
N
Y
P
A
R
T
O
F
T
H
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
B
Y
A
N
Y
O
N
E
WI
T
H
O
U
T
W
R
I
T
T
E
N
P
E
R
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
I
S
P
R
O
H
I
B
I
T
E
D
.
CO
N
T
E
N
T
S
O
F
T
H
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
I
N
T
E
N
T
A
N
D
S
T
A
T
E
A
N
D
LO
C
A
L
C
O
D
E
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E
.
I
T
I
S
T
H
E
U
S
E
R
'
S
A
N
D
S
U
B
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
'
S
OF
T
H
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
T
T
H
E
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
S
H
O
W
N
O
N
T
H
I
S
P
L
A
N
BE
S
T
M
A
D
E
P
L
A
N
S
,
L
L
C
DO
N
N
A
O
S
S
E
N
K
O
P
,
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
R
(5
4
1
)
3
5
0
-
4
3
2
0
EL
E
C
T
R
I
C
A
L
P
L
A
N
6
bm
p
@
b
e
n
d
b
r
o
a
d
b
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
LO
I
S
&
C
H
E
R
Y
L
C
A
N
F
I
E
L
D
14
0
3
A
S
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
GE
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
,
T
X
7
8
6
2
6
ENGINEERING
MIRROR STAIRS 04/23/20
Page 88 of 158
6
12
~ 17'-0"
9'
-
0
"
6'-0"
1'
-
0
"
1'-0"
8'-6"8'-6"
10
'
-
1
0
1 2"
6'
-
0
"
BREEZEWAY
~6'x17' 102 SQ. FT.
9'-0" PLATE HT.
612 ROOF PITCH
BEAM SIZE TBD
BEAM SIZE TBD
PREMANUFACTURED TRUSSES @ 24" O.C.
POST & FOOTING
SIZE TBD
8'-6"8'-6"
6'
-
0
"
8'-6"8'-6"
17'-0"
6'
-
0
"
FRONT & BACK VIEW
SIDE VIEW
FOUNDATION PLAN
ROOF PLAN
DATEPLAN REVISIONS
PLAN STATUS
FILE NO.:
SCALE:
DATE:
SHEET
A
P
L
U
S
O
R
M
I
N
U
S
T
O
L
E
R
A
N
C
E
.
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
V
A
R
I
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
S
H
O
U
L
D
T
H
E
R
E
F
O
R
E
B
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
A
S
H
A
V
I
N
G
DI
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
S
H
O
W
N
O
N
T
H
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
A
R
E
S
U
B
J
E
C
T
T
O
S
I
T
E
A
N
D
PR
O
J
E
C
T
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
T
O
C
A
R
E
F
U
L
L
Y
I
N
S
P
E
C
T
A
L
L
T
H
E
S
E
P
L
A
N
S
F
O
R
E
R
R
O
R
S
AN
D
O
M
M
I
S
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
N
O
T
I
F
Y
T
H
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
R
O
F
A
N
Y
D
I
S
C
R
E
P
E
N
C
I
E
S
.
TH
E
S
E
P
L
A
N
S
A
R
E
F
O
R
T
H
E
U
S
E
I
N
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
US
E
O
F
A
N
Y
P
A
R
T
O
F
T
H
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
B
Y
A
N
Y
O
N
E
WI
T
H
O
U
T
W
R
I
T
T
E
N
P
E
R
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
I
S
P
R
O
H
I
B
I
T
E
D
.
CO
N
T
E
N
T
S
O
F
T
H
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
I
N
T
E
N
T
A
N
D
S
T
A
T
E
A
N
D
LO
C
A
L
C
O
D
E
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E
.
I
T
I
S
T
H
E
U
S
E
R
'
S
A
N
D
S
U
B
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
'
S
PRELIMINARY
OF
T
H
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
T
T
H
E
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
S
H
O
W
N
O
N
T
H
I
S
P
L
A
N
BE
S
T
M
A
D
E
P
L
A
N
S
,
L
L
C
DO
N
N
A
O
S
S
E
N
K
O
P
,
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
R
(5
4
1
)
3
5
0
-
4
3
2
0
LO
I
S
&
C
H
E
R
Y
L
C
A
N
F
I
E
L
D
14
0
3
A
S
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
BR
E
E
Z
E
W
A
Y
1
GE
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
,
T
X
7
8
6
2
6
bm
p
@
b
e
n
d
b
r
o
a
d
b
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
Page 89 of 158
KITCHEN
GREAT ROOM
REF
LI
N
E
N
PA
N
T
R
Y
BEDROOM
BATH
4' TILE SHOWER
24'-0"
5'
-
0
"
12
'
-
6
"
COUNTER
PLANT ROOM
4/0 4/0 SH
3/
0
6
/
8
3/0
6
/
8
16/0 8/0 OHD
UP
4'-0"16'-0"
FLOOR PLAN
720 SQ. FT. LIVING
768 SQ. FT. GARAGE/PLANT ROOM
4/0 4/0 SH
3/0 6/8
WH
FREEZER
4/0 4/0 SH
4/
0
2
/
0
S
H
COUNTER
W/BENCH
LAUNDRY
WASH
DRY
UP
P
E
R
C
A
B
I
N
E
T
S
T
O
C
E
I
L
I
N
G
4'-0"
WIC
DW
3/
0
4
/
0
S
H
2/
6
5
/
0
S
H
2/
6
5
/
0
S
H
5/0 4/0 HS
5/
0
5
/
0
H
S
3/0
6
/
8
2
/
6
6
/
8
2/6 6/8
2/4 6/8
2/
4
6
/
8
2/6 6/8 PKT
4'
-
0
"
2/6
6
/
8
2/
6
6
/
8
P
K
T
3/0 5/0 SH
OUTLINE OF CANTILEVERED
DECK ABOVE
4'-6"5'-4"1'-10"6'-1"6'-3"
11'-8"12'-4"
24'-0"
2'
-
9
"
7'
-
8
"
2'
-
7
"
5'
-
6
"
4'
-
2
"
13
'
-
0
"
9'
-
8
"
7'
-
4
"
30
'
-
0
"
4'-6"1'-11"4'-1"
1'-2"
1'-2"11'-2"
4'
-
7
"
4'
-
1
1
"
7'
-
4
"
6'-8"6'-10"
10'-6"13'-6"
24'-0"
6'
-
3
"
23
'
-
9
"
11
'
-
2
"
1'
-
1
0
"
3'
-
4
"
3'
-
4
"
3'
-
0
"
7'
-
4
"
4'-6"
3'-8"
2'-0"4"2'-4"11'-2"
3'-8"
2'-4"
2'-4"11'-2"
6'-0"5'-6"3'-0"4'-9"4'-9"
14'-6"9'-6"
2'
-
0
"
12
'
-
6
"
7'
-
0
"
25
'
-
0
"
32
'
-
0
"
7'
-
0
"
11
'
-
0
"
14
'
-
0
"
32
'
-
0
"
24'-0"
14'-6"4'-2"5'-4"
UPPER FLOOR PLAN
720 SQ. FT. LIVING
768 SQ. FT. GARAGE/PLANT ROOM
132 SQ. FT. UPPER DECK
9'-0" PLATE HT.
9'-0" PLATE HT.
TO
C
E
I
L
I
N
G
UP
P
E
R
C
A
B
I
N
E
T
S
102 SQ. FT. BREEZEWAY
1440 SQ. FT. EXISTING HOME
3030 SQ. FT. 25%=758 SQ. FT.
96 SQ. FT. DECK OUTLINE OF
GARAGE BELOW
4'-0"
4'
-
0
"
30
'
-
0
"
3/0 6/8
CANTILEVERED DECK
DOWN
DATE
PLAN REVISIONS
PLAN STATUS
FILE NO.:
SCALE:
DATE:
SHEET
A
P
L
U
S
O
R
M
I
N
U
S
T
O
L
E
R
A
N
C
E
.
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
V
A
R
I
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
S
H
O
U
L
D
T
H
E
R
E
F
O
R
E
B
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
A
S
H
A
V
I
N
G
DI
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
S
H
O
W
N
O
N
T
H
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
A
R
E
S
U
B
J
E
C
T
T
O
S
I
T
E
A
N
D
PR
O
J
E
C
T
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
T
O
C
A
R
E
F
U
L
L
Y
I
N
S
P
E
C
T
A
L
L
T
H
E
S
E
P
L
A
N
S
F
O
R
E
R
R
O
R
S
AN
D
O
M
M
I
S
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
N
O
T
I
F
Y
T
H
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
R
O
F
A
N
Y
D
I
S
C
R
E
P
E
N
C
I
E
S
.
TH
E
S
E
P
L
A
N
S
A
R
E
F
O
R
T
H
E
U
S
E
I
N
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
US
E
O
F
A
N
Y
P
A
R
T
O
F
T
H
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
B
Y
A
N
Y
O
N
E
WI
T
H
O
U
T
W
R
I
T
T
E
N
P
E
R
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
I
S
P
R
O
H
I
B
I
T
E
D
.
CO
N
T
E
N
T
S
O
F
T
H
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
I
N
T
E
N
T
A
N
D
S
T
A
T
E
A
N
D
LO
C
A
L
C
O
D
E
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E
.
I
T
I
S
T
H
E
U
S
E
R
'
S
A
N
D
S
U
B
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
'
S
ENGINEERING
OF
T
H
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
T
T
H
E
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
S
H
O
W
N
O
N
T
H
I
S
P
L
A
N
BE
S
T
M
A
D
E
P
L
A
N
S
,
L
L
C
DO
N
N
A
O
S
S
E
N
K
O
P
,
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
R
(5
4
1
)
3
5
0
-
4
3
2
0
LO
I
S
&
C
H
E
R
Y
L
C
A
N
F
I
E
L
D
14
0
3
A
S
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
FL
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
2
GE
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
,
T
X
7
8
6
2
6
bm
p
@
b
e
n
d
b
r
o
a
d
b
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
MIRROR STAIRS 04/23/20
BREEZEWAY 07/16/20
Page 90 of 158
GARAGE
4" CONC. SLAB ON
FILL. SLOPE MIN. 1 %
TO O.H. DOOR
COMPACTED GRANULAR
EXPANSION
JOINT
11
'
-
5
"
16
'
-
4
3 4"
3'
-
2
1 2"
12
'
-
4
3 4"
24'-0"
3'
-
4
3 4"
3'
-
2
1 2"
25
'
-
4
3 4"
6'
-
1
1
"
25
'
-
1
"
3'-101
2"16'-3"3'-101
2"
24'-0"
11 7/8" JOISTS @ 12" O.C.
16"x6" FOOTING MINIMUM
8" STEM WALL MINIMUM
FOR 2 STORY
PROVIDE KNOCKOUT
FOR OHD
PROVIDE KNOCKOUT
FOR MAN DOOR
PROVIDE KNOCKOUT
FOR MAN DOOR
2x8 JOISTS @ 16" O.C.
3/4" T&G APA (16/0) STURD-I-FLOOR (OR EQUAL)
AND NAILED TO FRAMING (STAGGERED) W/10d NAILS @
6" O.C. AT PANEL EDGES & 12" O.C. IN PANEL FIELD.
START JOIST
LAYOUT HERE
FOUNDATION PLAN UPPER FLOOR FRAMING PLAN
4x6 HDR
4x
6
H
D
R
4x
6
H
D
R
4x
6
H
D
R
5 1/2"x12" GLB
4x6 HDR 4x6 HDR
2' CANTILEVER DECK
4" CONC. SLAB ON
COMPACTED GRANULAR FILL
8'
-
1
1
"
5'
-
4
"
8'
-
4
"
4" CONCRETE SLAB ON
COMPACTED GRANULAR FILL
DATE
PLAN REVISIONS
PLAN STATUS
FILE NO.:
SCALE:
DATE:
SHEET
A
P
L
U
S
O
R
M
I
N
U
S
T
O
L
E
R
A
N
C
E
.
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
V
A
R
I
A
T
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
S
H
O
U
L
D
T
H
E
R
E
F
O
R
E
B
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
A
S
H
A
V
I
N
G
DI
M
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
S
H
O
W
N
O
N
T
H
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
A
R
E
S
U
B
J
E
C
T
T
O
S
I
T
E
A
N
D
PR
O
J
E
C
T
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
T
O
C
A
R
E
F
U
L
L
Y
I
N
S
P
E
C
T
A
L
L
T
H
E
S
E
P
L
A
N
S
F
O
R
E
R
R
O
R
S
AN
D
O
M
M
I
S
I
O
N
S
A
N
D
N
O
T
I
F
Y
T
H
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
R
O
F
A
N
Y
D
I
S
C
R
E
P
E
N
C
I
E
S
.
TH
E
S
E
P
L
A
N
S
A
R
E
F
O
R
T
H
E
U
S
E
I
N
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
H
E
US
E
O
F
A
N
Y
P
A
R
T
O
F
T
H
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
B
Y
A
N
Y
O
N
E
WI
T
H
O
U
T
W
R
I
T
T
E
N
P
E
R
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
I
S
P
R
O
H
I
B
I
T
E
D
.
CO
N
T
E
N
T
S
O
F
T
H
E
S
E
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
P
R
O
V
I
D
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
I
N
T
E
N
T
A
N
D
S
T
A
T
E
A
N
D
LO
C
A
L
C
O
D
E
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
C
E
.
I
T
I
S
T
H
E
U
S
E
R
'
S
A
N
D
S
U
B
C
O
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
'
S
OF
T
H
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
T
T
H
E
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
S
H
O
W
N
O
N
T
H
I
S
P
L
A
N
BE
S
T
M
A
D
E
P
L
A
N
S
,
L
L
C
DO
N
N
A
O
S
S
E
N
K
O
P
,
D
E
S
I
G
N
E
R
(5
4
1
)
3
5
0
-
4
3
2
0
FO
U
N
D
A
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
/
F
L
O
O
R
F
R
A
M
I
N
G
4
bm
p
@
b
e
n
d
b
r
o
a
d
b
a
n
d
.
c
o
m
LO
I
S
&
C
H
E
R
Y
L
C
A
N
F
I
E
L
D
14
0
3
A
S
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
GE
O
R
G
E
T
O
W
N
,
T
X
7
8
6
2
6
ENGINEERING
MIRROR STAIRS 04/23/20
Page 91 of 158
1403 Ash Street Georgetown Garage Addition
Exterior Siding
Hardie board
HardiePlank HZ10 5/16 in. x 8.25 in. x 144 in. Fiber Cement Select Cedarmill Lap
Siding
Paint
Siding: Gray blue
Trim: white and black accents
Example pictures:
Page 92 of 158
Roof Options
1st Choice
2nd Choice
GARAGE DOOR
Windows
& Doors
Page 93 of 158
27.75 in. x 53.25 in. 70 Series Pro Double Hung White Vinyl Window
Deck & Stairs
Deck Boards
TREX® SELECT COMPOSITE DECKING SAMPLE IN WINCHESTER GREY
Page 94 of 158
Railing
Original Rail Vinyl 8 ft. x 36 in. 32°-38° Stair Rail Kit Including Square Baluster in White
Exterior Lighting Options
Possible exterior light fixtures
Outdoor Light
Page 95 of 158
Breezeway Example
Page 96 of 158
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM — TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8-82)
1. County Williamson
City/Rural Georgetown
2. Name 6 Date: Factual
Address 1403 Ash
7 Architect/Builder
Contractor
3. Owner 8 Style/Type
Address 9. Original Use r=esidential
4. Block/Lot Present Use residential
10. Description One-story wood frame dwelling; exterior walls with asbestos shingle siding;
gable roof with composition shingles; front elev. faces W.; wood sash double-hung windows
with 1/1 lights: single-door entrance; three-bay porch with shed roof across W. elev.:
turned wood posts. Other noteworthy features include carved-wood ornamentation on sloor.
11. Present Condition good
12. Significance
13. Relationship to Site: Moved Date
or Original Site (describe)
14. Bibliography 15. Informant
16. Recorder D. Moore/HHM Date July 1984
DESIGNATIONS
PHOTO DATA
TNRIS No Dld THC Code B&W 4x5s Slides
q RTHL q HABS (no.) TEX-35mm Negs.
YEAR DRWR ROLL FRME
to
to
to
ROLL FRME
2
NR: 0 Individual 0 Historic District
['Thematic 0 Multiple-Resource
NR File Name
21 12
47 2 47 6
Other
CONTINUATION PAGE No 2
TEXAS HISTORIC SITES INVENTORY FORM - TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION (rev. 8-82)
WM
GE
5. USGS Quad No. 3097-313
UTM Sector 627-3389
Site No 647
Est 1900?/1960?
1. County Williamson
GeorgetownCity/Rural
2. Name
5. USGS Quad No. 309 7-313 Site No hLL7
WM GE
Page 97 of 158
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1403 Ash St 2016 Survey ID:125336
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address CANFIELD, ROBERT E & LOIS F, 1403 S ASH ST, , GEORGETOWN,TX 78626-6944
Latitude:30.631405 Longitude -97.672908
Addition/Subdivision:S3810 - Hughes Addition
WCAD ID:R042801Legal Description (Lot/Block):HUGHES ADDITION, BLOCK 8(NW/PT), ACRES 0.497
Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Current Designations:
NR District Yes No)
NHL NR
(Is property contributing?
RTHL OTHM HTC SAL Local:Other
Date Recorded 3/4/2016Recorded by:CMEC
Other:
Historic Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processing
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Other:
Current Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processingHealthcare
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Function
EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1900
Builder:Architect:
Healthcare
Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4
Vacant
Vacant
Old Town District
Current/Historic Name:None/None
Photo direction: East
Page 98 of 158
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1403 Ash St 2016 Survey ID:125336
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story, center passage, single-family home with no particular style clad in asbestos siding with a cross-gabled roof
and a full-width, projecting porch with a shed roof and a single front door.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Siding replaced, early addition at rear
Stylistic Influence(s)
Queen Anne
Second Empire
Greek Revival
Eastlake
Italianate
Log traditional
Exotic Revival
Colonial Revival
Romanesque Revival
Renaissance Revival
Folk Victorian
Shingle
Monterey
Beaux Arts
Tudor Revival
Mission
Neo-Classical
Gothic Revival
Moderne
Craftsman
Spanish Colonial
Art Deco
Prairie
Pueblo Revival
Other:
Commercial Style
Post-war Modern
No Style
Ranch
International
Gable Hipped Gambrel Shed Flat w/parapet
Structural Details
Roof Form
Mansard Pyramid Other:
Wood shingles Tile Composition shingles Metal Other:
Roof Materials
Wall Materials
Metal
Brick
Wood Siding
Stucco
Siding: Other
Stone
Glass
Wood shingles
Asbestos
Log
Vinyl
Terra Cotta
Other:
Concrete
Fixed Wood sash Double hung Casement Metal sash
Windows
Decorative Screenwork
Other:
Single door Double door With transom With sidelights
Doors (Primary Entrance)
Other:
Plan
Irregular
L-plan
Four Square
T-plan
Rectangular
Modified L-plan 2-room Open ShotgunCenter Passage
Other
Bungalow
Chimneys
Brick StuccoStone Corbelled Caps
Interior Exterior
Other
Specify #0
PORCHES/CANOPIES
Form:Shed Roof Hipped RoofFlat Roof Gabled Roof Inset Other
Support
Suspension rods
Box columns Classical columns
Wood posts (plain)
Spindlework
Wood posts (turned)
Tapered box supports
Masonry pier
Other:
Fabricated metal
Jigsaw trim
Suspension cables
Materials:Metal FabricWood Other:
# of stories:1 PartialNone FullBasement:
Ancillary Buildings
Garage Barn Shed Other:
Landscape/Site Features
Stone
Sidewalks
Wood
Terracing
Concrete
Drives Well/cistern Gardens
Other materials:Brick
Other
Landscape Notes:
Cross-Gabled
Shutters, Wood
None
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Vernacular
Page 99 of 158
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1403 Ash St 2016 Survey ID:125336
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
SECTION 3
Historical Information
Immigration/Settlement
Religion/Spirituality
Commerce
Law/Government
Science/Technology
Communication
Military
Social/Cultural
Education
Natural Resources
Transportation
Exploration
Planning/Development
Other
Health
Applicable National Register (NR) Criteria:
National State LocalLevel of Significance:
Integrity:
Setting Feeling
Location
Association
Design Materials Workmanship
Yes NoIndividually Eligible?Undetermined
Is prior documentation available
for this resource?Yes No Not known
General Notes:Present on 1916 Sanborn (Notes from 2007 Survey: asbestos shingles; porch posts replaced)
Associated Historical Context:Agriculture Architecture Arts
C
D
B
A Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history
Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the work of a
master, or possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
lack individual distinctions
Has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
Areas of Significance:
Periods of Significance:
Integrity notes:See Section 2
Yes NoWithin Potential NR District?Undetermined
Yes NoIs Property Contributing?Undetermined
High Medium
Priority:
Low Explain:Priority has been raised because of the age
and relative integrity of the property.
Other Info:
Type:HABS Survey Other
Documentation details
1984 survey and 2007 survey
Contact Survey Coordinator
History Programs Division, Texas
Historical Commission
512/463-5853
history@thc.state.tx.us
Questions?
1984 ID:6472007 ID:984
2007 Survey Priority:Low 1984 Survey Priority:Low
Page 100 of 158
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Old Town District
Address:1403 Ash St 2016 Survey ID:125336
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Medium
Additional Photos
NortheastPhoto Direction
SoutheastPhoto Direction
Page 101 of 158
HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
ADDITIONAL HISTORIC INFORMATION
FILE NUMBER: 2020-39-COA
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1403 Ash Street
APPLICANT: Cheryl Canfield
Exhibit 5 to the Staff Report for 2020-39-COA
Seamon Oscar Eidman was born in Oberbiel, Germany in 1832. He was one of eight children. The Eidman
family emigrated from Germany to Texas in 1846, arriving at Galveston before traveling to San Felipe.
S.O. Eidman's father, Simon, died in San Felipe on September 22, 1846, along with an infant sister. His
mother, Cathrien, sent her children to neighbors who need help with their homes or farms so that the
family had some means of earning an income. In his own account of his life, Eidman recalls traveling
across south and southeast Texas for various jobs transporting livestock and goods, eventually investing
in livestock, trade and real estate. In 1860 he was elected Justice of the Peace for Pct. 1 at Austin County,
and during the Civil War Eidman served as Postmaster at Austin County. Eidman married Jennie
(Virginia) Elinore Gregory of Fayetteville, Texas on February 16, 1870 and moved his family to
Georgetown in 1879 after the death of his brother and his wife’s long illness. At the time of his death in
1928 he was living with his son, Seamon Eidman, in Bay City, Texas.
In his account of his life, Eidman wrote about coming across Georgetown while looking for a new home,
saying “…we struck Georgetown, Williamson County, on our return home--a nice healthy little town
located on the high banks of the San Gabriel River with scores of fine flowing springs of pure cold water
and the S. W. University in its infancy with fine prospect for a greater institution of high learning. This
decided us to rent a house for the winter and if we liked the place would improve us a home. I left my
brother-in-law, F. A. Berner, to look after my store and other business until I could return and settle up
all our partnership business. It was not long until Wife and myself decided to locate after finding a nice
block consisting of two acres upon which to build us a comfortable dwelling. We drew up our plans of
the house we wanted, let the contract before the close of the year, so we could move into part of the
building during February 1880.” He further described his home and business dealings in Georgetown,
as well as painted a picture of what life was like in the later part of the 19th century: “I spent a large
portion of my time in improving an eighteen hundred acre ranch about eight miles west of town and
stocking it with good white-faced cattle, also looking after some farming interests. Rucker and
Montgomery who had been in business here in Georgetown were forced to make an assignment,
appointed me their assignee to settle up their firm's business. I also was appointed receiver of the
Georgetown defunct chair factory and a number of minor jobs.
Page 102 of 158
File Number: 2020-39-COA
Meeting Date: August 27, 2020
Page 2 of 2
“My block consisted of two acres of land. I had a good curbed sidewalk built all around it and good fence
enclosing it, raised plenty of nice vegetables, also pears, peaches, plums, apples and grapes and fig
aplenty. I was not making and laying up money but kept the wolf out of doors for several years. We had
some of the Southwestern U. professors boarding with us--Professor Heyer, Jones and two others whose
names have slipped my memory. Also young ladies until they built the ladies' acres when they were not
allowed to board in boarding houses but room and board at Ladies Acres. We also had boy boarders, R.
L. Henry and his brother, John Matthews, Rosser Thomas and others. Prof. Heyer and myself built a nice
little boat to use on San Gabriel River when we went fishing. Professor Jones bought a lot of fishlines and
hooks and cut them in proper lengths. He used my sharp hand axe and used a large rock nearby for
chopping block. He had never learned that chopping on a rock with a sharp tool will dull if not ruin it.
Of course, he had a very dull tool before I discovered it.
“When I moved to Georgetown there was no waterworks nor electric light plant. We soon called a
meeting and eleven men including myself undertook and built the present waterworks of Georgetown.
A large spring in the bed of San Gabriel River furnished an overlasting supply of pure cold water. The
water works is now owned by the city as well as the electric light plant, operated by the water works
machinery. When I moved to Georgetown in September A. D. 1879 there were but few nice buildings in
Georgetown, not a single modern store building, a few old-fashioned rough rock houses, no waterworks
or electric light plant, two blacksmith shops around the old courthouse square, a few small stores and
five large prosperous saloons, not a single nice church building, or sidewalks and black muddy streets. I
served as secretary and treasurer of a building committee with Dr. Mood, Dr. J. H. McGave and Capt. D.
H. Snyder to build the first Methodist Church South that ever was built in Georgetown, Texas. Dr. Mood,
the founder of Southwestern Un. preached for us in the old chapel, nor did we have a public school
building. We had private school in an old frame building which seated some fifteen or twenty children.
The old chapel was a two story rock building with four small rooms downstairs and two rooms upstairs
which composed the Southwestern Un. buildings. We hold Sunday School in the lower rooms and
preaching in one of the upper rooms.”
S. O. Eidman’s narrative of his life written in 1923 is available at
http://www.usgenwebsites.org/TXMatagorda/family_eidman.htm.
Page 103 of 158
1403 Ash Street Garage Addition
2020-39-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
August 27, 2020
1Page 104 of 158
Item Under Consideration
2020-39-COA –1403 Ash Street Garage Addition
•Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness (COA) for an addition to a street facing façade, a 10' setback
encroachment into the required 25' street-facing garage setback to allow a
residential structure 15' from the side street (north) property line, and a 7’-6”
building height modification to the required 15’ maximum building height at
the side street (north) setback, to allow a building height of 22’-6” at the side
street (north) setback at the property located at 1403 Ash Street, bearing the
legal description of 0.497 acres out of the Northwest Part of Block 8 of the
Hughes Addition.
2Page 105 of 158
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•Addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing facade
•Setback modification
•Building height modification
3Page 106 of 158
Item Under Consideration
4Page 107 of 158
First United
Methodist Church
5Page 108 of 158
Current Context
6Page 109 of 158
1916, 1925 & 1940 Correction Sanborn Maps
7Page 110 of 158
1964 Aerial Photo
8Page 111 of 158
1974 Aerial Photo
9Page 112 of 158
Current Photo
10Page 113 of 158
1403 Ash Street –Proposed Site Plan
11Page 114 of 158
1403 Ash Street –Proposed Addition
12Page 115 of 158
Context for Requested Setback Modification
13
Page 116 of 158
1403 Ash Street –Proposed Street Elevation
14Page 117 of 158
1403 Ash Street –Proposed Elevations & Roof Plan
15Page 118 of 158
1403 Ash Street –Proposed Connector
16Page 119 of 158
1403 Ash Street –Proposed Floor Plans
17Page 120 of 158
1403 Ash Street –Proposed Materials
18Page 121 of 158
Current Context
19Page 122 of 158
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Partially
Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;Complies
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially
Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;Complies
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and
character of the historic overlay district.N/A 20Page 123 of 158
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
a. Whether the proposed setback encroachment is solely a matter of convenience;Complies
b. Whether there is adequate room on the site to allow the proposed addition or new structure without
encroaching into the setback;
Partially
Complies
c. Whether the proposed setback is compatible and in context within the block in which the subject
property is located;
Partially
Complies
d. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will be set closer to the street than other units
within the block;Complies
e. Whether the proposed structure is replacing a structure removed within the past year;N/A
f. Whether the proposed structure will replace a structure that previously existed with relatively the
same footprint and encroachment as proposed;Complies
21Page 124 of 158
Setback Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030.D.2
Criteria Staff’s Finding
g. If the proposed encroachment is for a structure that is replacing another structure, whether the
proposed structure is significantly larger than the original;
Partially
Complies
h. If the proposed encroachment is for an addition, the scale of the addition compared to the original
house;
Partially
Complies
i. The size of the proposed structure compared to similar structures within the same block;Complies
j. Whether the proposed addition or new structure will negatively impact adjoining properties, including
limiting their ability to maintain existing buildings;Complies
k. Whether there is adequate space for maintenance of the proposed addition or new structure and/or
any adjacent structures; and/or Complies
l. Whether the encroachment would enable existing large trees or significant features of the lot to be
preserved.N/A
22Page 125 of 158
Building Height Modification Approval Criteria
–UDC Section 3.13.030.C.2
Criteria Staff’s Finding
a. Views to and from the Courthouse and to and from the Town Square Historic District will be
protected; and N/A
b. The character of the Downtown Overlay District and the Town Square District will be defined,
reinforced and preserved; and N/A
c. The relationship of the proposed project to the existing structures in the immediate vicinity
remains consistent; and Complies
d. The proposed project allows for the best utilization of redevelopment in the Downtown Overlay
District and the Town Square Historic District; and N/A
e. The proposed project protects the historic buildings in the Downtown Overlay District.N/A
23Page 126 of 158
Public Notification
•Two (2) signs posted
•Thirty-two (32) letters mailed
•No public comments
24Page 127 of 158
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requests for the addition, setback
modification and building height modification.
25Page 128 of 158
HARC Motion –2020-39-COA
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
26Page 129 of 158
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
August 27, 2020
S UB J E C T:
Public Hearing and P ossible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (C O A) for new
s ignage that is incons is tent with an approved Master S ign P lan or applic able guidelines at the property
located at 806 R oc k S treet, bearing the legal des cription of 0.08 acres out of the east part of Lot 1, Block
49 of the C ity of G eorgetown. – Britin Bos tic k, Downtown & Historic P lanner
IT E M S UMMARY:
T he ap p licant is proposing exterior modific ations and new s ignage fo r C o reena’s Brid al, a new wedding
dres s b o utiq ue. T he p ro p o s ed c hanges inc lud e the rep lacement o f the no n-his toric overhead d o o r with a
fixed s torefront window, and the signage is propos ed to b e two p rimary s igns , one o ver eac h entrance, and
a blade s ign on the northwes t corner.
T he p ro p o s ed s ignage cons is ts of three s igns . T he firs t s ign is a primary façade s ign mo unted over the
entranc e o n R o ck S treet. T he s treet faç ad e is 60 ft., allowing fo r a s ign area o f 60 s q. ft., and the proposed
s ign is 48” x 96” o r 32 s q. ft., cons tructed o f an aluminum p anel with vinyl lettering and logo. T he sec ond
s ign is a p ro jec ting s ign o r blade s ign mounted on the northeas t c o rner, which c an b e up to 15 s q . ft. and a
maximum of 5’ in height. T he proposed blade s ign is 18” x 36” o r 4.5 s q . ft. and is also vinyl applied to an
aluminum panel.
A third sign o ver the W. 8th S treet entrance is p ro p o s ed with two size optio ns , to either be the s ame size
and design as the sign over the R oc k S treet entranc e and 48” x 96” or 32 s q. ft., or to be a s maller s ign of
36” x 96” or 24 sq. ft. and the same vinyl ap p lied to an aluminum panel materials. T he firs t two signs
comply with the applicable Des ign G uidelines and c an be approved by the HP O , but becaus e the third sign
would act as a s econd primary sign and the Des ign G uidelines spec ify a single primary s ign per busines s ,
the third s ign o r additio nal p rimary sign req uires HAR C approval. Although the Design G uidelines limit
primary signs to o ne p er b usines s , this p artic ular build ing has two entranc es , one on R o ck S treet and one
on W. 8th S treet, and the p ro p o s ed s ignage is within the size allo wance for façade signs in the Design
G uidelines.
F IN AN C IAL IMPAC T:
None. T he applicant has paid the required application fees .
S UB MIT T E D B Y:
Britin Bostick, Downtown & His toric P lanner
AT TAC H ME N T S:
Description Type
Staff Report Cover Memo
Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit
Page 130 of 158
Exhibit 2 - Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3 - Plans & Specifications Exhibit
Exhibit 4 - His toric Resource Surveys Exhibit
Staff Pres entation Pres entation
Page 131 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-29-COA – 806 Rock Street Page 1 of 5
Meeting Date: August 27, 2020
File Number: 2020-29-COA
AGENDA ITEM DESCRIPTION
Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new signage
that is inconsistent with an approved Master Sign Plan or applicable guidelines at the property located
at 806 Rock Street, bearing the legal description of 0.08 acres out of the east part of Lot 1, Block 49 of the
City of Georgetown.
AGENDA ITEM DETAILS
Project Name: Coreena’s Bridal
Applicant: Benito Ortiz
Property Owner: TLW Rock Street LTD
Property Address: 806 Rock Street
Legal Description: 0.08 acres out of the east part of Lot 1 of Block 49 of the City of Georgetown
Historic Overlay: Downtown Overlay District
Case History: N/A
HISTORIC CONTEXT
Date of construction (HRS or Other): 1930 (HRS)
Historic Resources Survey Level of Priority: Low
National Register Designation: N/A
Texas Historical Commission Designation: N/A
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
HARC:
New signage that is inconsistent with an approved Master Sign Plan or applicable guidelines
HPO:
An addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade for a low priority
structure
New signage, to include new signage that is consistent with an approved Master Sign Plan
STAFF ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing exterior modifications and new signage for Coreena’s Bridal, a new wedding
dress boutique. The proposed changes include the replacement of the non-historic overhead door with a
fixed storefront window, and the signage is proposed to be two primary signs, one over each entrance,
and a blade sign on the northwest corner.
Page 132 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-29-COA – 806 Rock Street Page 2 of 5
The proposed signage consists of three signs. The first sign is a primary façade sign mounted over the
entrance on Rock Street. The street façade is 60 ft., allowing for a sign area of 60 sq. ft., and the proposed
sign is 48” x 96” or 32 sq. ft., constructed of an aluminum panel with vinyl lettering and logo. The second
sign is a projecting sign or blade sign mounted on the northeast corner, which can be up to 15 sq. ft. and
a maximum of 5’ in height. The proposed blade sign is 18” x 36” or 4.5 sq. ft. and is also vinyl applied to
an aluminum panel.
A third sign over the W. 8th Street entrance is proposed with two size options, to either be the same size
and design as the sign over the Rock Street entrance and 48” x 96” or 32 sq. ft., or to be a smaller sign of
36” x 96” or 24 sq. ft. and the same vinyl applied to an aluminum panel materials. The first two signs
comply with the applicable Design Guidelines and can be approved by the HPO, but because the third
sign would act as a second primary sign and the Design Guidelines specify a single primary sign per
business, the third sign or additional primary sign requires HARC approval. Although the Design
Guidelines limit primary signs to one per business, this particular building has two entrances, one on
Rock Street and one on W. 8th Street, and the proposed signage is within the size allowance for façade
signs in the Design Guidelines.
APPLICABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are applicable to the proposed scope of work in accordance with the adopted
Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines:
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 9 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SIGNS
9.2 A sign shall be subordinate to the overall building
composition
A sign should appear to be in scale with the
façade.
Locate a sign on a building such that it will
emphasize design elements of the façade itself.
Mount a sign to fit within existing architectural
features. Use the shape of the sign to help
reinforce the horizontal lines of moldings and
transoms seen along the street.
Complies
Proposed signs are scaled to the façade
and do not detract from it.
9.6 A flush-mounted wall sign shall not exceed one
square foot for every one foot of linear façade width.
For instance, a building with twenty feet of
street frontage would be eligible for a sign of
twenty square feet (20 X 1 = 20). In true sign
dimensions. This would be a sign of
approximately two feet by ten feet.
Note that the formula establishes the
maximum permitted sign area, when all other
Complies
The east and north facades of the building
each have 60’ of street frontage and the
proposed flush-mounted façade signage is
32 sq. ft. and either 32 sq. ft. or 24 sq. ft. for
a total of either 56 sq. ft. or 64 sq. ft.
Page 133 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-29-COA – 806 Rock Street Page 3 of 5
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 9 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SIGNS
factors of scale, proportion, and compatibility
are met. A sign does not have to be as large as
this equation allows. The first considerations
shall be compatibility with the size and
character of the façade.
In a case where a building has more than one
face exposed to a public way, the allowed sign
area may not be combined.
9.10 A projecting sign may be considered.
A projecting sign should appear to be in
proportion with the building. It should not
overwhelm the appearance of the building or
obscure key architectural features.
A projecting sign shall provide a minimum
clearance of eight feet between the sidewalk
surface and the bottom of the sign.
A projecting sign shall be no more than fifteen
square feet in size with a maximum sign height
of five feet.
Additionally, a projecting sign shall in no case
project beyond ½ of the sidewalk width.
Signs should not obscure the view of any
windows, existing signs, and/or adjacent
buildings to an unreasonable extent.
A large projecting sign is not permitted unless
other types of signage are not approved for the
building.
A large projecting sign, if approved, should be
mounted higher, and centered on the façade or
positioned at the corner of a building.
Generally, a projecting sign should not be
located above the second floor.
“Blade” signs are considered projecting signs
and should follow the guidelines for projecting
signs.
Any two-sided sign shall be designed to be
back to back and in no case shall both sides of
the sign be visible at any time to the reader.
Complies
The proposed blade sign is 4.5 sq. ft. and is
18” x 36”, mounted above 84” on the W. 8th
Street facade.
9.17 Sign materials should be compatible with that of
the building façade.
Complies
Page 134 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-29-COA – 806 Rock Street Page 4 of 5
GUIDELINES FINDINGS
CHAPTER 9 – DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SIGNS
A simple, easy-to-read sign design is preferred.
Typefaces that are in keeping with those seen
in the area traditionally are encouraged.
Select letter styles and sizes that will be
compatible with the building front. Generally,
those are typefaces with serifs.
Avoid hard-to-read or overly intricate type-
face styles.
Painted wood and metal are appropriate
materials for signs. Their use is encouraged.
Unfinished materials, including untreated
wood, are discouraged because they are out of
character with the context of the Overlay
Districts.
Plastic is not permitted, except for flush,
adhesive, professionally installed lettering.
Highly reflective materials that will be difficult
to read are inappropriate.
Painted signs on blank walls were common
historically and may be considered.
The proposed signs are black vinyl applied
to white aluminum panels and are
compatible with the building façade.
9.23 Sign brackets and hardware should be
compatible with the building and installed in a
workman-like manner.
Complies
Mounting brackets and hardware are
proposed to be professionally fabricated
and installed.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
In accordance with Section 3.13.030 of the Unified Development Code, the HARC must consider the
following criteria:
SECTION 3.13.030 AND 4.08.050 CRITERIA FINDINGS
1. The application is complete and the
information contained within the
application is correct and sufficient enough
to allow adequate review and final action;
Complies
Staff reviewed the application and deemed it
complete.
2. Compliance with any design standards of
this Code;
Complies
Proposed project complies with applicable
UDC requirements.
Page 135 of 158
Planning Department Staff Report
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
2020-29-COA – 806 Rock Street Page 5 of 5
SECTION 3.13.030 AND 4.08.050 CRITERIA FINDINGS
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties to the most extent
practicable;
Complies
Building façade is not the historic façade, and
the original stone façade was covered with
siding between 2011 and 2015.
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown
and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be
amended from time to time, specific to the
applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially Complies
Proposed signage complies with applicable
Design Guidelines, excepting the provision on
the first page of Chapter 9 which specifies one
primary sign per business.
5. The general historic, cultural, and
architectural integrity of the building,
structure or site is preserved;
Complies
Proposed signage is consistent with the
building and compliments the existing facade.
6. New buildings or additions are designed to
be compatible with surrounding properties
in the applicable historic overlay district;
Not Applicable
No new building or additions are proposed as
part of this project.
7. The overall character of the applicable
historic overlay district is protected; and
Complies
Proposed project does not diminish the
character of the Downtown Overlay District.
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the
adopted Downtown and Old Town Design
Guidelines and character of the historic
overlay district.
Partially Complies
Proposed signage complies with applicable
Design Guidelines for size and materials, but
the second primary sign requires approval by
HARC.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings listed above, staff recommends APPROVAL of the request for the proposed second
primary sign with the 24 sq. ft. size.
As of the date of this report, staff has received no written comments.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Location Map
Exhibit 2 – Letter of Intent
Exhibit 3 – Plans and Specifications
Exhibit 4 – Historic Resource Survey
SUBMITTED BY
Britin Bostick, Downtown & Historic Planner
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Page 136 of 158
Location
2020-29-COA
Exhibit #1
MAR
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
W 8TH ST
FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
W 9TH ST
W 10TH ST
RO
C
K
S
T
S A
U
S
T
I
N
A
V
E
S M
A
I
N
S
T
E 10TH ST
E 9TH ST
E 8TH ST
FO
R
E
S
T
S
T
MAR
T
I
N
L
U
T
H
E
R
K
I
N
G
J
R
S
T
E 7TH ST
WES
T
S
T
W7THST
TIN
B
A
R
N
A
L
Y
0 200100
Feet
¯
Site
Parcels
Page 137 of 158
806 S. Rock Street, Georgetown, TX.
Letter of intent
The project on 806 S Rock Street in Georgetown is a remodel of an existing tenant finish out.
The project will be turned into a bridal store named Coreena’s Bridal based of the original store
in College Station, Texas. The remodel consists mainly of interior construction but will include
one exterior change to the building. The removal of an overhead garage door on the Rock Street
side of the building for a 7’ storefront window in order to give the building a more retail feel.
The window will be trimmed out and finished to match the existing exterior material already
used on the building. Coreena’s Bridal is very excited and willing to work with the City of
Georgetown to get this project up and going.
Page 138 of 158
Page 139 of 158
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Downtown District
Address:806 Rock St 2016 Survey ID:123994
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
Owner/Address TLW ROCK STREET LTD, c/o ERIC VISSER, PC, 2802 FLINTROCK TRCE, AUSTIN,TX 78738-1743
Latitude:30.636379 Longitude -97.679215
Addition/Subdivision:S3667 - Georgetown City Of
WCAD ID:R041422Legal Description (Lot/Block):S3667 - Georgetown City Of, BLOCK 49, Lot 1(E/PT), ACRES
Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Current Designations:
NR District Yes No)
NHL NR
(Is property contributing?
RTHL OTHM HTC SAL Local:Other
Date Recorded 3/3/2016Recorded by:CMEC
Other:
Historic Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processing
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Other:
Current Use:GovernmentEducationalDomestic
SocialReligiousRecreation/cultureIndustry/processingHealthcare
DefenseCommerce/tradeAgriculture
Function
EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1930
Builder:Architect:
Healthcare
Note: See additional photo(s) on page 4
Vacant
Vacant
Downtown District
Current/Historic Name:None/None
Photo direction: Southwest
Page 140 of 158
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Downtown District
Address:806 Rock St 2016 Survey ID:123994
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 2
Architectural Description
General Architectural Description:
One-story commercial building with no particular style clad in vinyl siding with a rectangular plan, flat roof, and a flush
entry door with a transom.
Relocated
Additions, modifications:Stone cladding replaced with vinyl siding, multiple storefront doors enclosed, one window
enclosed, garage bay added, windows and window surrounds replaced, canopies removed
Stylistic Influence(s)
Queen Anne
Second Empire
Greek Revival
Eastlake
Italianate
Log traditional
Exotic Revival
Colonial Revival
Romanesque Revival
Renaissance Revival
Folk Victorian
Shingle
Monterey
Beaux Arts
Tudor Revival
Mission
Neo-Classical
Gothic Revival
Moderne
Craftsman
Spanish Colonial
Art Deco
Prairie
Pueblo Revival
Other:
Commercial Style
Post-war Modern
No Style
Ranch
International
Gable Hipped Gambrel Shed Flat w/parapet
Structural Details
Roof Form
Mansard Pyramid Other:
Wood shingles Tile Composition shingles Metal Other:
Roof Materials
Wall Materials
Metal
Brick
Wood Siding
Stucco
Siding: Other
Stone
Glass
Wood shingles
Asbestos
Log
Vinyl
Terra Cotta
Other:
Concrete
Fixed Wood sash Double hung Casement Metal sash
Windows
Decorative Screenwork
Other:
Single door Double door With transom With sidelights
Doors (Primary Entrance)
Other:
Plan
Irregular
L-plan
Four Square
T-plan
Rectangular
Modified L-plan 2-room Open ShotgunCenter Passage
Other
Bungalow
Chimneys
Brick StuccoStone Corbelled Caps
Interior Exterior
Other
Specify #0
PORCHES/CANOPIES
Form:Shed Roof Hipped RoofFlat Roof Gabled Roof Inset Other
Support
Suspension rods
Box columns Classical columns
Wood posts (plain)
Spindlework
Wood posts (turned)
Tapered box supports
Masonry pier
Other:
Fabricated metal
Jigsaw trim
Suspension cables
Materials:Metal FabricWood Other:
# of stories:1 PartialNone FullBasement:
Ancillary Buildings
Garage Barn Shed Other:
Landscape/Site Features
Stone
Sidewalks
Wood
Terracing
Concrete
Drives Well/cistern Gardens
Other materials:Brick
Other
Landscape Notes:
Not visible
Vinyl
N/A
N/A
None
None
None
Unknown
Asphalt
Page 141 of 158
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Downtown District
Address:806 Rock St 2016 Survey ID:123994
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 3
Historical Information
Immigration/Settlement
Religion/Spirituality
Commerce
Law/Government
Science/Technology
Communication
Military
Social/Cultural
Education
Natural Resources
Transportation
Exploration
Planning/Development
Other
Health
Applicable National Register (NR) Criteria:
National State LocalLevel of Significance:
Integrity:
Setting Feeling
Location
Association
Design Materials Workmanship
Yes NoIndividually Eligible?Undetermined
Is prior documentation available
for this resource?Yes No Not known
General Notes:
Associated Historical Context:Agriculture Architecture Arts
C
D
B
A Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of our history
Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or represents the work of a
master, or possesses high artistic value, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
lack individual distinctions
Has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
Areas of Significance:
Periods of Significance:
Integrity notes:See Section 2
Yes NoWithin Potential NR District?Undetermined
Yes NoIs Property Contributing?Undetermined
High Medium
Priority:
Low Explain:Property lacks integrity
Other Info:
Type:HABS Survey Other
Documentation details
Contact Survey Coordinator
History Programs Division, Texas
Historical Commission
512/463-5853
history@thc.state.tx.us
Questions?
1984 ID:Not Recorded2007 ID:Not Recorded
2007 Survey Priority:Not Recorded 1984 Survey Priority:Not Recorded
Page 142 of 158
County Williamson
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Local District:Downtown District
Address:806 Rock St 2016 Survey ID:123994
City Georgetown
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY FORM
2016 Preservation Priority:Low
Additional Photos
NorthwestPhoto Direction
Page 143 of 158
Coreena’s Bridal
2020-29-COA
Historic & Architectural Review Commission
August 27, 2020
1Page 144 of 158
Item Under Consideration
2020-29-COA –Coreena’s Bridal
•Public Hearing and Possible Action on a request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for new signage that is inconsistent with an approved Master
Sign Plan or applicable guidelines at the property located at 806 Rock Street,
bearing the legal description of 0.08 acres out of the east part of Lot 1,Block
49 of the City of Georgetown.
2Page 145 of 158
Item Under Consideration
HARC:
•New signage that is inconsistent with an approved Master Sign Plan or applicable
guidelines
HPO:
•An addition that creates a new, or adds to an existing street facing façade for a low
priority structure
•New signage, to include new signage that is consistent with an approved Master Sign
Plan
3Page 146 of 158
Item Under Consideration
4Page 147 of 158
Historic
Courthouse
5Page 148 of 158
Current Context
6Page 149 of 158
806 Rock Street –2011 Facade
7Page 150 of 158
Proposed Signage –HPO Review
8
Proposed Primary Sign –48” x 96” or 32 sq. ft.Proposed Blade Sign –18” x 36” or 4.5 sq. ft.
Page 151 of 158
Proposed Signage –HARC Review
9
Proposed Primary Sign –36” x 96” or 24 sq. ft.Proposed Alternate Primary Sign –48” x 96” or 32 sq. ft.
Page 152 of 158
Proposed Signage –Staff Recommendation
10
Proposed Primary Sign –48” x 96” or 32 sq. ft.
Proposed Blade Sign –18” x 36” or 4.5 sq. ft.
Proposed Primary Sign –36” x 96” or 24 sq. ft.Page 153 of 158
Current Context
11Page 154 of 158
Approval Criteria –UDC Section 3.13.030
Criteria Staff’s Finding
1. The application is complete and the information contained within the application is correct and
sufficient enough to allow adequate review and final action;Complies
2. Compliance with any design standards of this Code;Complies
3. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the most extent practicable;Complies
4. Compliance with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines, as may be amended from
time to time, specific to the applicable Historic Overlay District;
Partially
Complies
5. The general historic, cultural, and architectural integrity of the building, structure or site is preserved;Complies
6. New buildings or additions are designed to be compatible with surrounding properties in the
applicable historic overlay district;N/A
7. The overall character of the applicable historic overlay district is protected; and Complies
8. The Master Sign Plan is in keeping with the adopted Downtown and Old Town Design Guidelines and
character of the historic overlay district.
Partially
Complies 12Page 155 of 158
Public Notification
•Two (2) signs posted
•No public comments
13Page 156 of 158
Recommendation
Staff recommends Approval of the request for the proposed second
primary sign with the 24 sq. ft. size.
14Page 157 of 158
HARC Motion
•Approve (as presented by the applicant)
•Deny (as presented by the applicant)
•Approve with conditions
•Postpone
15Page 158 of 158